Celebrating and Leveraging Classroom Geographic and Cultural Diversity to Enhance Student Learning

Abstract

In the fall of 2022, we offered a pedagogically redesigned sociotechnical environmental engineering elective for junior and senior undergraduates that applied place-based and culturally sustaining pedagogies. The course featured a project designed to facilitate the celebration and leveraging of classroom geographic and cultural diversity to enhance student learning about water sustainability. We analyzed the students’ written project reflections using an inductive thematic analysis to explore whether and how the project and pedagogical model augmented student learning. The primary themes that emerged included: (1) deepened knowledge of home and culture; (2) global conceptualizations; (3) re-evaluation of perceptions and beliefs (in terms of water sustainability and personal relationships with water); and (4) future-facing viewpoints. We consider each of these ‘enhancements’ to the student learning because they extend beyond the course objectives and explore the sociotechnical aspect of engineering. The purpose of this paper is to share the course and project model, our findings from its implementation, and suggestions on how this pedagogical framework could be adapted and scaled to expand the learning of a range of topics at different learner levels.

1. Introduction

Classroom diversity presents an opportunity to expand learning by facilitating opportunities for students to learn from one another and their different cultures, experiences, and/or perspectives. In the fall of 2022, we offered a pedagogically redesigned elective for junior and senior undergraduate engineering students that facilitated the celebration and leveraging of classroom geographic and cultural diversity to enhance student learning. Though the course focused on water and the design and analysis of water treatment processes through the lens of sustainability [1,2], the pedagogical approach and course model are adaptable to a range of learner contexts. We situated the course in the sociotechnical engineering paradigm, in which engineers wholistically explore and consider the ‘socio‘ elements of an engineering topic or project (cultural, economic, environmental, political, etc.) interlinked with the technical [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. The course was taught previously by another instructor; however, we redesigned it using place-based and culturally sustaining pedagogies (CSPs), which emphasize a connection between the students’ lived experiences and their course experiences [16,17,18]. The purpose of this paper is to share the course and project model, qualitative findings from their implementation based on student and instructor reflections, and suggestions on how this pedagogical framework could be adapted and scaled to support the learning of a range of topics at different learner levels.

We previously developed a solar energy course using the same hybrid place-based and CSPs model, but operationalized the model differently in that course context [19]. Students explored the feasibility of potential solar energy projects on campus while learning about solar energy from a technical engineering standpoint. As such, the ‘place’ was the shared context of the university campus, and we provided learning experiences designed to be relevant to this context and their lives [20,21,22,23,24]. While using the same pedagogical framework for this water-focused course, instead of using our shared campus context as the place of interest, we used the students’ hometowns. Our university context lent itself well to this adaptation, with 41% of students from outside of the state of California, where the university is located, and 7% international campuswide [25].

Complementing the technical course lectures and activities, students studied and shared about their hometown drinking water and wastewater treatment models (referred to as ‘water models’ in this paper) through the lens of sustainability and shared their findings with the class through presentations and reports. Over the course of the 14-week semester, the students co-created a broad knowledge base about implemented water models and got to know one another on a deeper level than would have been facilitated by a traditional lecture course model. Using the students’ hometowns as the studied places provided an additional opportunity to leverage classroom diversity to study a wide range of water models across geographic and cultural settings while celebrating that diversity as a class.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Course Design

The course outcomes were as follows:

• Describe the relationship between the natural water cycle and human water use.
• Recognize water quality parameters that may negatively affect human health and/or the environment and explain why these are important.
• Analyze the principles of solid-liquid separation for water treatment.
• Describe the physical and chemical processes necessary to meet a required separation performance.
• Analyze the chemical reactions and physical processes involved in water treatment for different purposes.
• Identify the components involved in different water treatment processes, including flocculation, coagulation, flotation, clarification, and sedimentation, among others.
• Evaluate how separation equipment can be combined to create a complete and functional system.
• Describe water quality issues and regulations at a local and national level.

Outcomes two through seven were addressed through lectures, in-class activities, and homework. The project addressed outcomes one, two, seven, and eight. The project comprised 15% of the students’ grades in the course; 60% was from exams on technical course content, 15% from homework and in-class activities, and 10% from participation.

Classes were mainly held in a traditional classroom, though the course also included several water-based lab activities that took place in a laboratory setting with a sink. Course assessment methods included presentations, exams, homework assignments, and lab reports. Overall course evaluations were favorable; the students rated the course with an average score of 4.3 and the instructor with an average score of 4.5 out of a maximum rating of 5.

2.2. Course Participants

The course instructor had a background in environmental engineering and sociotechnical engineering education. Sixteen junior and senior students took the class—seven men and nine women. Three students were majoring in mechanical engineering, 13 were in the integrated engineering program, which emphasizes sociotechnical engineering and sustainability. Three of the students were international—one from Asia and two from the Gulf States. Four of the American students were from different parts of California; the rest were from locations across the United States, with considerable variation ranging from the island state of Hawaii to the land-locked state of Kentucky. The students’ hometowns had populations ranging from <100,000 (6), between 100,000 and 1,000,000 (5), and >1,000,000 (5). Locations ranged from coastal to inland and semi-rural to urban.

While the international students clearly introduced macrocultural diversity into the class, the American students came from diverse backgrounds and locations within the American macrocultural context and introduced a richness of microcultures. Microcultures vary from the larger, often dominant culture, and microcultural groups have a common point of connectivity, such as experiences, values, demographic attributes, and/or a geographic point of connection [26]. Because the project focused on geographically diverse student hometowns, each student also represented their unique microculture (for American students) or macroculture (for international students). For example, a student from a small, semi-rural American town is part of a microculture that differs from another student coming from an American urban setting, and those differences were highlighted in the project. Further, with respect to water, a student from a water-scarce desert region has different microcultural water experiences than a student coming from a water-rich region full of lakes, for example.

2.3. Project Design

The class met for 55 minutes three times a week for 14 weeks. The project focused on students generating water models of their hometowns and sharing them with the class. We divided the project into two parts; students completed the first part at the beginning of the semester and the second part in the final weeks of the course. Both parts of the project culminated in a brief report (~two-to-five single-spaced pages with images) and a presentation (seven minutes).

2.3.1. Local Example

Before assigning the project, the instructor led the students in collaboratively piecing together the water model for the university’s home city, San Diego. On the first day of class, the instructor prompted the students to draw one-minute pictures that depicted their understanding of: (1) where San Diego’s drinking water comes from (i.e., what water sources) and how it is treated; and (2) where San Diego’s wastewater goes and how it is treated (i.e., what happens after the toilet is flushed until final ‘disposal’ or recycling). The sketches provided a pre-assessment and a starting point to introduce the first knowledge base that students would collaboratively generate.

The instructor then divided the class into three groups, focusing on drinking water, wastewater, and recycled water, respectively. Each group was given a series of prompts related to their topic to first briefly research individually (~15 min), then discuss with group members, come to a consensus on their answers, and finally present their findings to the class in a short, two-to-five minute presentation. The full activity, including presentations, was accomplished in ~75 min spanning the second and third class sessions.

The prompts for each group built on the pre-assessment sketching prompts. For example, shorthand prompts for the drinking water group included: “1. Where do we get our drinking water from in San Diego? (i.e., What water sources? How much? Cost?); 2. How do we treat our drinking water in San Diego? (i.e., What water treatment processes? Where?); 3. Reflect and comment on the sustainability of this model. (Think in terms of water, energy, cost, etc.). How do you think we compare to other cities?” The wastewater and recycled water groups received an analogous set of prompts. Following the student presentations, the instructor supported the students in conceptually weaving together and critiquing each of the elements, which yielded a full view of San Diego’s water model. Additionally, the instructor engaged the students in a discussion about the definition of sustainability, preparing them to grapple with ‘water sustainability’ in the project.

2.3.2. Project Part 1

Using the class-generated San Diego water model as an example, the students set out to individually generate analogous water models for their hometowns. If the students did not want to share about their hometowns for any reason or in the event that more than one student was from the same place, they could choose to focus their project on another location of personal significance (such as somewhere they hoped to live one day, a special place they had visited, etc.). However, each of the students chose to focus on their hometown and took evident pride in sharing where they were from. In their report and presentation, students were to address the following:

• Background and Introduction—“Tell us about where you are from. Where is it located (helpful to show on a map)? Population size? Anything else interesting, surprising, pertinent to share!”
• Drinking Water—“Where does the drinking water in your hometown come from? (i.e., What water sources? How much? Cost?) How does your hometown treat the drinking water? (i.e., What water treatment processes? Where?)”
• Wastewater—“Where does the wastewater go in your hometown? (i.e., When you flush the toilet, where does it go?) How does your hometown treat the wastewater? (i.e., What water treatment processes? Where?)”
• Water Sustainability—“State your definition of ‘water sustainability’. Reflect and comment on the sustainability of your hometown’s drinking and wastewater treatment models. (Think in terms of water, energy, cost, etc.) What if any water recycling efforts does your hometown have in place? With respect to water sustainability, in what ways is your hometown excelling? What challenges is your hometown facing? Again, with respect to water sustainability, how does your hometown compare to other cities?”

2.3.3. Project Part 2

The second part of the project was implemented at the end of the semester, after the students had learned about each other’s hometowns from their project part one presentations, as well as learned technical course content through active-learning lectures and in-class activities. For part two of the project, the students addressed the following prompts in their presentations and integrated their writeups with those from the first part of the project to create a single, final report:

• Hometown Water Model Sustainability—“In your previous report draft, you defined ‘water sustainability’, and reflected and commented on the sustainability of your hometown’s drinking and wastewater treatment models. Now, you will expand upon your reflections in the following ways:

  a.

  Make any revisions to your work to reflect any changes in your perceptions you may have had from what you have learned in our class.

  b.

  Defend your position by thoroughly comparing and contrasting the sustainability of your hometown’s water model with the sustainability of four other water models that you have learned about in this class from your classmates’ hometowns. Think carefully about what categories to include in your comparative analysis so that it is broad and thorough (i.e., water sourcing, cost, energy, culture, climate, recycling…)”.

2.

Personal Reflection—“Reflect and comment on whether and how the following has changed for you as a result of what you have learned so far in the class:

a.

Your perceptions of your hometown’s water model.

b.

Your perceptions of humanity’s future water sustainability trajectory.

c.

Your own personal relationship with water”.

Students additionally identified and reported on sustainable water model exemplars from across the world and water-related innovations. Because this paper is focused on the hometown elements of the project, we have not included those prompts here.

2.4. Analysis

We analyzed the students’ personal reflections using an inductive thematic analysis [27] to explore whether and how the project and pedagogical model enhanced student learning in the course. We share student quotes in this paper using pseudonyms to preserve anonymity. Although the students had specific prompts for the reflection, we analyzed their responses in aggregation so that themes could organically emerge. We identified preliminary themes, mapped student responses to the themes, adjusted the themes again, and then finalized them.

3. Results

We list the themes and sub-themes in

Table 1. Themes and sub-themes.

Theme	Sub-Theme
Deepened Knowledge of Home and Culture
2. Global Conceptualizations
3. Re-evaluation of Perceptions and Beliefs	i. Water Sustainability
	ii. Relationship to Water
4. Future-Facing Viewpoints

and present summaries of our findings for each in the sections below.

3.1. Deepened Knowledge of Home and Culture

Most of the students reported that, prior to the project, they were unfamiliar with and had never thought about their hometown drinking water models. Most did not know where their drinking water came from or what happened to it after it went down the drain or toilet in their childhood home. In Paige’s words, “before taking this class and doing research for this project, I had no knowledge of [my hometown’s] water model or even the city’s sustainability in general”. Jennifer felt similarly, and her unfamiliarity—like most of the class—stretched beyond her hometown: “before this class and this project, I knew very little about drinking and wastewater treatment processes”.

For some students, what they discovered about their hometowns was uplifting, while others were disappointed. Paige was “surprised to learn about how sustainable [her hometown’s] water model was”, but she also felt that sentiment was tempered after comparing it to other water models when she discovered that her city was “not as sustainable in other areas”. Joseph was pleasantly “surprised to learn how much [his] community recycled water and the other community-based initiatives for saving water and reducing water usage”. He also became newly aware of the “significant barriers to a strong future of a sustainable water model [in his hometown] like the excessive landscape use and the water discharged into the ocean”. Before starting the project, David “was hopeful that [his] hometown’s water system would be one to truly highlight”. He was disappointed to discover that “although the system has its sustainable aspects, there is much that could be improved upon going into the future”.

The students first explored their hometowns at the beginning of the semester before they learned about water treatment processes through lectures and in-class activities. As such, researching their hometown water models was their first introduction to the technical content that was to come in the course. Several students expressed surprise about how much effort went into their water before it came out of the tap. For example, Chris “never knew the complicated processes that water undergoes before [his hometown was] able to safely drink it”. For him, learning about all the “different steps starting from the water source and ending with water treatment and release opened [his] eyes on (sic) the importance and complications of having pure safe drinking water”.

Researching their hometowns after reflecting on our university’s local water model also provided an opportunity for comparison. In some cases, students learned about their hometown culture by reflecting on it from a distance and by comparing it to another model. Kara found a cultural difference between her hometown and San Diego in the perception of tap water: “In [my hometown], I drank water from the tap without any hesitation…I found it quite interesting that people [from another city] did not drink water from the tap because it was ‘hard’ and ‘unclean’.” She felt that the course project gave her “the knowledge to evaluate [her] water based on the source” and also prompted her to “strive to conserve water for environmental purposes”.

In sum, each of these reflections pointed to a deepened knowledge of home and culture, which are outcomes that do not typically emerge from technical engineering electives.

3.2. Global Conceptualizations

The students synthesized their class and project learnings into extrapolations on the global scale, including reflections about humanity, the world, society, and the ‘general public.’ Many students made connections between water sustainability and climate change, which was not a topic of focus in the course. In some cases, the students reflected on what they learned and applied it to a global perspective, while in others, they put forth a global call-to-action.

Laura reflected that she “learned to value water more” and found that “learning about how we as a society treat and view water compared to how other societies treat and view water [was] a bit of a shock”. For example, Laura wrote: “[an American city] just cleans wastewater to the minimum level and dumps it into the ocean compared with [a city in Asia] which collects every drop that falls from the sky and recycles the water and strives to reuse every drop, it shows how far behind we, the [United States], really are”. Joseph also articulated surprise, though his was due to learning “that so many people do not have access to what the [United Nations] standardizes as safe drinking water”. He also connected his learning to climate change and stated that “there is much to be done to distribute water more equivalently in spite of how climate change is affecting the natural water cycle”.

Lila felt that the class “shaped [her] into a more informed citizen when it comes to water consumption and use”. She connected what she learned more broadly than the class directly covered by stating that “water treatment can lead to political issues including government intervention in healthcare”. Paige connected what she learned to a global context through climate change. She wrote, “I believe that the key to improving our overall water sustainability is to prevent massive weather events by finding ways to help reduce global warming”.

Chris articulated a call-to-action for a more informed citizenry. He said he “wouldn’t have come across this topic if it weren’t for this class” and thinks “the general public should be more informed about the importance of water and educated on the attitude that each person should carry when it comes to dealing with water”. Joseph identified a “change of mindset” as “crucial for the future of water sustainability, not just in [his] hometown but across the world”. Annabelle also articulated the need for a global change in mindset to one aligned with indigenous values, viewing water as life and a part of us rather than a resource. She wrote:

Western society views water and the earth as a resource. As such, our treatment and actions degrade the environment over time, and we are experiencing the consequences of it in climate change. Choosing to view the Earth as life, and water as a part of us might change the way in which we treat it in our models, and use it in our daily lives. Through this project, my respect for water has grown considerably. I think the easiest way to improve sustainability in any water model, no matter the location, is to see it as life, not as a resource. To treat it with as much respect as we do animals or even humans.

The project model started with a local focus, studying our university’s urban setting as a class. It branched outward through the student-generated network of information about their hometowns. These reflections indicate that the students were then able to build global conceptualizations on that scaffolding without explicit instruction to do so.

3.3. Re-Evaluation of Perceptions and Beliefs

3.3.1. Water Sustainability

In critically analyzing the sustainability of their hometown water models, numerous students articulated re-evaluated perceptions, while others felt that what they learned through the project reinforced what they had already hypothesized about their hometowns. Many of the students included critiques in their reflections and described actions they felt their hometowns should take to increase their water sustainability.

Jennifer grew up in a community that marketed its “high-quality tap water”, and because of the marketing, she felt pride and confidence in the quality of her hometown’s drinking water. For Jennifer, “learning more of the specifics of [her hometown’s] water model and treatment process added to [her] perception but didn’t change it much”. She “perceived [her hometown] as having a high-quality sustainable water model and [her] research confirmed this”. However, she critically reflected on the source of her information, cautioning that the “vast majority” of her knowledge about her hometown’s water model was from their own website, so it could be “more marketing”.

David expressed, “My perception of my hometown’s model has not changed all too much”. Kyle similarly stated that his perception of his hometown’s water model “has not changed much in that [he] still believe[s] that [his country’s] government has done very poorly to maintain its rural population’s health and safety”. While his hometown perception did not change, his perceptions of the university’s local city of San Diego’s model did. He critiqued San Diego’s lack of water sustainability efforts and, as a wealthier country (compared to his country of origin), argued that they should be doing more. Paige reflected that her perception of her hometown water model “has not really changed” either. For her, a comparison to other water models solidified what she already hypothesized about her hometown. She noted that the “location and climate [of her hometown] does not allow the city to have a 100% reliable water source, so it was probably very important for the city to really improve the sustainability of its water processes”. She felt that the city made improvements that placed their water model “above a lot of cities”.

Further research did not change Doug’s or Debra’s views of their hometown water models either. Doug critiqued his hometown’s lack of water recycling efforts and heavy reliance on imported water by listing three cities that were similar in some ways but doing better. He also expressed hope about things changing and said he felt that “in the near future…water sustainability is going to get better and better”. Debra imagined that her city was somewhere in the middle, “not the worst or best model out there”. She reflected on what she gained from the project, writing, “I had the opportunity to find ways that [my hometown] can improve using methods from other cities’ models”.

Anna and Annabelle both saw their hometowns as exemplary in terms of water sustainability. For Anna, “after researching and seeing many presentations on water models”, she perceived her hometown as having “one of the best current implementations and plans of action”. She felt her hometown exemplified “how water equity and sustainability can be achieved” and gave hope that water sustainability is something that communities can work towards. Annabelle described her hometown as “one of the most sustainable water systems” she had researched. Still, she thought they could and should do more. She reflected:

With further research, reflection, and peer collaboration, I do not think [my hometown] is as sustainable as it can be. Sustainability needs to be a dedication and priority, even when it may not be “needed”. [My hometown] has an opportunity to recycle water and use less chemicals in their treatment that not only affect the environment through wastewater effluent, but our bodies as well. I think [my hometown has] an opportunity and an obligation to implement a more circular approach to water.

Jeff stated that his “perception and understanding of [his] hometown model has changed significantly because of other cities’ models”. Kara also had a change in perception and, after learning from her peers, found her hometown water model to be “not nearly as efficient as others” but “more sustainable than others”. She critiqued her hometown’s water recycling efforts and stated, “When I change my scope to how my hometown is exercising sustainability for the sake of future generations, I recognize that there is still a lot that my hometown can still do”. Laura was disappointed to discover that her hometown was not as water sustainable as she had thought. She reflected:

I do not believe that [my hometown] is as sustainable as I originally thought. While they have a solid source of water that is sustainable and will provide water for many generations, they are not doing much else. There are possible plans to recycle water and insert it back into the [drinking water source], but the information on this is vague and confusing which leads me to believe that it is not a reality yet. However, they do seem to have plans to start integrating water recycling into their water management system which is a step in the right direction, I think. Compared to some of the other places we looked at though, I think [my hometown] gets a 2/10 for sustainability.

Lila was also disappointed to learn that her water-rich hometown did not have an exemplary water model, and it caused her to re-evaluate her perceptions. In Lila’s words:

Prior to this research project, I had assumed that a city like [my hometown], with an abundance of water, would have an excellent water model. This project has pushed me to dig deeper and re-evaluate my perception of water in [my hometown]. After reflecting on [my hometown]’s water model, I find that much more can be done to increase sustainability efforts, in particular, water recycling. Water recycling really should be more of a common practice on a residential level.

Chris stated that his perception of water itself and his perception of his hometown’s water model changed. He wrote, “After learning about what my classmates had to share in class and also the research I have done, I can see that there is way more to water than I have known”. He also found that “based on what [he has] seen from other water models… [his] hometown’s water model has a long way to go in terms of sustainability”. Allison similarly expressed that “by looking more deeply into water sustainability efforts and innovations across the world, …it made [her] realize how much more [her] hometown can do”. In her words, she critiqued, “As a place as abundant in natural resources and potential for sustainable energy efforts, we aren’t doing as much as we could”.

Joseph went beyond isolated suggestions for his hometown and expressed that he had “pieced together what an ideal water model would look like for [his] hometown”. He went on to specify learning takeaways from some of the studied water models:

From the water-scarce regions in the Middle East, I have learned about the importance of diversifying the sources of water. From the local communities of Los Angeles and San Diego, I have learned the importance of needing water to be recycled to reduce use and save the consumer money. From other communities in the U.S., I have learned the importance of the treatment of water and how it should not impact the surrounding environment. Using principles from other communities’ ideas of sustainability, we can adapt these principles for the vastly different water systems and communities.

Though some students changed their perceptions while others did not, whether the project yielded a change in perspective for each student is ancillary to the pedagogical objectives. The key takeaway is that each reflection indicated a re-evaluation of the student’s perceptions or beliefs, facilitated by the application of critical analysis to the student-generated knowledgebase.

3.3.2. Relationship to Water

The re-evaluation of perceptions and beliefs extended beyond water sustainability to student reflections about themselves and their personal relationships with water. For some students, the class and project were the first time they had thought about water and their relationship to it. For example, Debra wrote, “In regards to my own personal relationship with water, I’m not sure that I had one until taking this class”. She had not “seriously discussed” water since elementary school science class and had “never thought deeply about water treatment or water scarcity and drought”. She “didn’t know that water sustainability was so complex with many different categories that contribute to it” but felt that the class provided her with the skillset to “evaluate cities” and that “with these new discoveries, [her] appreciation of water has certainly increased”.

Joseph’s perception of water “changed significantly”. He was impacted by the beginning of the course, when the instructor prompted the students to consider all water as a precious resource rather than considering wastewater as ‘waste’ for disposal. Joseph found “this simple change of mindset…crucial for the future of water sustainability, not just in [his] hometown but across the world”. He grew up in a drought-prone region and described that he was therefore raised to be water-conscious. Learning about the “entire process” of water treatment was “very helpful for [him] to know that there are feasible ways to make an impact in [his] personal, family, and community’s water use”. Because of this, he wrote, “Water sustainability seems much more feasible to me than it had in the past”.

Multiple students mentioned a shift away from taking water “for granted”. For example, David realized that he took “having clean, running water for granted on a daily basis, not always watching [his] consumption and allowing [himself] to slip into poor water habits”. He further articulated that “throughout this course, I feel that my understanding of water has greatly expanded and my passion for doing good with such knowledge has done the same”. Laura similarly expressed that her “perception and relationship with water has changed” and that she has “always taken it for granted”. She wrote, “It has always been there so I never had to think about be (sic) conservative with water until I got to college and started learning more about it”. Chris relatedly reflected:

Based on everything that I have learned this semester I cannot deny that my personal perception of water has completely changed. To me, water was always something that I have taken for granted…[the project] opened my eyes on the importance and complications of having pure safe drinking water.

Kyle described himself as more in-progress and reflected, “I still do not have a great understanding on (sic) the importance of water”. He went on to say:

To put my relationship with water very basically, I take it for granted even despite what I have learned from the class…I understand its importance more so than I did a few months ago but I am still unable to fully comprehend its pivotal role in our basic day to day lives.

Kara drank from the tap her whole life without consideration. Her “dentist had stated that drinking tap water is preferable, due to the fact that tap water contains fluoride, which is good for one’s teeth”. Any “attempts [she] made to decrease water use revolved around the knowledge that water costs money, and in order to save money, [she] would be conscious of my water consumption”. After taking the course, her motivations pivoted towards the environment. In her words, “moving forward, I now have the knowledge to evaluate my water based on the source and will strive to conserve water for environmental purposes”.

Not all students had a changed relationship with water. Anna wrote, “My own relationship hasn’t changed. I’ve always cared for water”. She indicated that she “hope[s] to work in water one way or another”, and so she “hope[s] to keep the things [she] learned in this class about sustainable practices to heart”. Paige felt that her “personal relationship with water has grown with [her] throughout [her] life”.

Jennifer described knowing about the necessity of water for life and the importance of access to drinking water and wastewater treatment, but she “didn’t know any details about water models”. Following the course, she felt like she “hold[s] more respect for water models as a whole, all the parts within them, and the people who make them work correctly”. Annabelle also mentioned respect and indicated that her “respect for water has grown considerably”. She went on to write, “I think the easiest way to improve sustainability in any water model, no matter the location, is to see it as life, not as a resource”.

Lila gained confidence among her takeaways. In Lila’s words, “I feel more confident in my ability to identify factors that influence a community’s water model, including water source, water availability, climate and population”. She also realized “that water treatment goes far beyond simply purifying drinking water”. Some students felt a call to action from what they learned. For example, Allison stated:

I personally feel a commitment to do better than those before me in terms of sustainability and renewable energy. I love [my hometown] so dearly, and I want to do everything in my power to give future generations the ability to see the beauty of nature that I grew up with.

Though it was not our original objective, these findings indicate that the course and project facilitated students in re-evaluating their perceptions and beliefs about themselves and their personal relationships with water. We hypothesize that this reevaluation was ignited by the pedagogical approach used and that it would have been less pronounced in a traditional lecture-style classroom setting that typically does not tie to students’ experiences.

3.4. Future-Facing Viewpoints

The students were future-facing in their reflections about water sustainability. Some students were optimistic about the future, while others were concerned. Many students referenced climate change in their responses, even though it was not specifically a topic of focus in the course. However, the students likely had previous opportunities to directly learn about and reflect on climate change in their other integrated engineering courses and/or their liberal arts core curriculum courses.

Joseph felt “optimistic about change for the future of the world’s water sustainability because it is a much more obvious issue than climate change”. He described the tangible nature of people being able to see when reservoirs are dry, for example. He further described that clean water is “much more achievable than some of the bigger crises our world faces” and felt that “with better infrastructure and interdisciplinary action, water sustainability is a very achievable goal in our lifetime”. Anna was more guarded in her optimism. Unlike Joseph, she stated, “I know humanity will never reach water sustainability or equity”. She went on to express value in the “small steps”, even though she felt that water sustainability or equity were impossible, as follows:

Much like the fight against climate change, which sometimes people don’t believe water sustainability is part of, you are responsible for your own actions towards water sustainability. We must recycle, take care of natural resources, clean after ourselves, and take into consideration our actions. While I wish we could one day have water for everyone, it’s not possible, but each small step is better than nothing.

Jeff also connected water sustainability to climate change and reflected an understanding that “there are a lot of little things that can be done that will slow down climate change and leave enough resources behind for future generations”. Lila’s perception of humanity’s future water sustainability trajectory did not change; for her, “it is clear…that we are on a path to a more sustainable future. There are currently so many efforts to preserve our natural water sources, it is hard not to see a world in which the advancement of water sustainability is imminent”. Kyle articulated that “we have the power and means at our disposal to create a positive relationship with our planet, not only in water, but we are unable to for one reason or another”. He cautioned that if we do not “find alternative solutions in the near future, we may begin to see conflict over a basic commodity”.

Allison had “faith that humanity’s future with water sustainability will persist and more innovations will be made” based on all the “efforts” she has seen in the United States and around the world. She also cautioned that “climate change continues to escalate” but balanced that concern with an optimism that “there is an abundance of resources we have to make our systems more sustainable, and people are working constantly each day to produce them”. While David always tended to “find it somewhat worrisome thinking about the future of humanity’s water habits and trends”, he came to realize “through the research and presentations for this project that there is much hope for the future of our world’s water”.

Kara was “not very optimistic at all” about humanity’s future water sustainability trajectory. She felt that out of all the “presentations of her peers, there was only one hometown…that has taken into account the needs of its future generations at all”. She articulated that while there are water recycling efforts, “there is a whole other component, which has to do with advocating for future generations, that is being ignored”. She felt this was especially critical, “bringing into the picture climate change”.

Laura also expressed concern. She wrote that, “much like climate change, it will take a lot to get on the right track and it will take a long time to make even a small change”. However, she did mention feeling some hope that “there are a lot of places around the world, like [an Asian country], that I think are doing a lot better than we are”.

Jennifer identified herself as “not the most optimistic person in terms of climate change”. She wrote:

My perception before this class was that some cities were making strides towards water sustainability but the majority of cities were not. I think that this has been confirmed after learning about other people’s hometowns. A few places like Kauai have lots of water recycling programs that are very beneficial and create a sustainable water model. Other cities, like Louisville, have plenty of water and so have no worries about water security and are not looking towards the future at all. Then there are cities like San Diego, where the water supply is barely adequate and so efforts are made to recycle water and be sustainable, but the efforts are simply not enough and will not provide for future generations.

Paige reflected that she had “never really thought too much about humanity’s future for water sustainability”. She felt that “with our ever-growing population and limited livable space on Earth, … humanity needs to make some really big improvements quickly in order to achieve the ultimate definition of water sustainability: meeting our needs without compromising the needs of future generations”. She articulated an urgency and said that “if we do not take action soon, we will not have enough water to successfully sustain future generations”. Doug expressed concern about the increasing population and increased water demand. He turned his concerns about the future into a call for action and said the following:

We have grown to just consume water and just ignore the consequences it would affect for others or even the future generations. We just need to come together and form different attitudes towards water. Setting a set of shared values in communities is a starting point for behavioral change.

Debra noticed that “some cities and areas just seem to have better circumstances to establish a more sustainable water model”, which made her “worried for humanity’s future water sustainability trajectory”. She pinpointed her concern by reflecting:

There’s technology to help with improving water quality, but there’s only so much technology can do without the space or infrastructure to support it and there are a lot of restrictions just based on location and geography.

She also referenced political issues surrounding water, especially in a “nation such as the United States, where a lot of issues are split and politicized”. She wrote, “I’m hoping that there comes a time where water sustainability is no longer politicized and maybe there will be an opportunity to find new solutions then”.

Regardless of whether the students felt optimistic or concerned about the future, each student exemplified engaged citizenship as they thoughtfully considered the future from an informed standpoint.

4. Discussion

The primary themes that emerged from the student reflections included: (1) deepened knowledge of home and culture; (2) global conceptualizations; (3) re-evaluation of perceptions and beliefs (in terms of water sustainability and personal relationship with water); and (4) future-facing viewpoints. Each of these is an ‘enhancement’ to the student learning for the course because they extend beyond the course objectives. Additionally, the outcomes associated with each of these themes are not typically achieved in engineering electives, which are typically myopically technical. Furthermore, the means by which this learning was accomplished simultaneously facilitated community and relationship building in the classroom and the collaborative generation of a shared knowledgebase, which are also not achieved in traditional, lecture-style courses. Similar themes (such as student self-efficacy [28] and community building in the classroom [29]) have been identified in the literature in other CSP learning contexts outside of engineering. Other studies presented hands-on projects to facilitate student learning about water and sustainability (such as [30,31]) but did not demonstrate student learning relative to these expanded themes.

This place-based and culturally sustaining pedagogical model advances the literature on how to develop sociotechnical, sustainability-focused engineering curricula [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15] and complements the model proposed by Gelles and Lord for integrating sociotechnical modules into materials science classes [8]. We were particularly pleased to see that the students exhibited critical thinking using data from the course content and student presentations, considering multiple approaches for water treatment, and comparing and contrasting these models. Students also demonstrated that they could critically evaluate the source of information, which is not typical in engineering classes but has been demonstrated in a circuits course using a sociotechnical approach [7]. Such deep thinking is important for engineering students as they move into professional careers and demonstrates achievement of ABET accreditation outcomes related to public health, global, ethical, environmental, and societal considerations [32], which are often challenging for engineering faculty to implement [33].

Before working on the class project, most students did not know where their hometown drinking water came from or what happened to it after it went down the drain or toilet in their childhood home. The project provided an opportunity to deepen their knowledge of home and culture through the vehicle of water. Using the hometowns as a starting point, the learning rippled both inward and outward, with students reporting changed perceptions on both an individual and global scale. They reflected on themselves and, in many cases, changed their perspectives on and/or the ways in which they relate to water. The students also integrated what they learned about their hometowns and from their classmates into a scaffolding that they scaled and translated into conceptualizations about humanity and our global trajectory as it relates to water. Some students went beyond theorizing and translated their ideas into calls-to-action, for their hometowns and on a global scale, to increase our future potential for water sustainability.

Place-based and culturally sustaining pedagogies provided the framework for this course project, and the same pedagogical model can be adapted to other applications. For example, in this course context, students’ hometowns were geographically and culturally diverse and provided a broad representation of water model settings from rural to urban, coastal to inland, spanning the United States and several international locations. Variations of the project could be used in less geographically diverse learning environments by prompting students to choose a place that they hope to visit someday or somewhere significant to them that they once visited. Though not learning about the students’ hometowns, such an implementation would still provide an opportunity to learn more about the students themselves.

Although the project for this course focused on water, it could also be adapted to explore other sustainability-related topics, such as waste or energy models used in various geographic locations. As with the water-related project presented in this paper, students could similarly study and critique the sustainability of the waste and/or energy models for their chosen geographic locations.

This project implementation was part of a 14-week course, and we divided it into two parts so that it would bookend and encase the technical engineering course content and activities. However, the project could instead be condensed into a single, in-class activity and scaled to different learner levels by changing the depth of the research students are expected to conduct and their reflections. The key elements are for students to learn about a sustainability-related topic in a place of importance to them and to share what they learn about that topic (and themselves) with their classmates. The instructor can then guide the students in integrating the shared information into a collective knowledgebase and prompt the students to reflect on and create meaning from that knowledgebase.

5. Limitations

The findings presented in this paper are from a single course offering using this pedagogical model, which included a small sampling of students. However, this is our second time developing and piloting a course using this hybrid place-based and CSPs pedagogical model, as we previously used it for a solar energy engineering elective, which also had favorable outcomes [19]. Most of the students in the course (13 out of 16) were from the integrated engineering department and had taken other sociotechnical courses that emphasized sustainability. As such, they had previous opportunities to reflect on their personal choices and the future global implications of our collective choices in terms of sustainability, both of which emerged within the themes presented in this paper. However, none of the students had previously studied water sustainability.

6. Conclusions

We developed and piloted a pedagogically redesigned sociotechnical environmental engineering elective for upper-division undergraduates that applied place-based and culturally sustaining pedagogies. The course featured a project designed to facilitate the celebration and leveraging of classroom geographic and cultural diversity to enhance student learning about water sustainability. We divided the course project into two parts, bookending the technical course content and activities. The second part of the project included a reflection, which we analyzed to explore whether and how the project and pedagogical model augmented student learning. Our findings indicated that the project did expand student learning beyond what was required by the course objectives, including deepening student knowledge of home and culture, making global conceptualizations, re-evaluating perceptions and beliefs about water, and reflecting on the future. This work advances the literature on how to develop sociotechnical, sustainability-focused engineering curricula. Additionally, this course and project design could serve as a model that can be adapted and scaled to support learning in other place-based contexts.