A Maturity-Based Engineering Learning Approach: Reflective, Ethical, and Adaptive
Citation: J. Nambundo, M. Godoy Simões, K. Michael and P. F. Ribeiro, "A Maturity-Based Engineering Learning Approach: Reflective, Ethical, and Adaptive," in IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 56-67, June 2026, doi: 10.1109/MTS.2026.3674874.
Education plays a crucial role in human and social development, enabling individuals to become active and responsible members of society. In engineering, this role increasingly extends beyond the transmission of technical knowledge to include the nurturing of soft skills such as ethical awareness, collaborative ability, and social responsibility—qualities that are widely regarded as essential for innovation that serves the public interest. Consequently, many scholars and practitioners advocate for a more holistic approach to engineering education, one that integrates technical proficiency with critical thinking, ethical reflection, and social engagement to prepare students for the evolving demands of the profession.
Developmental psychologist Piaget [1] and educational philosopher Freire [2, p. 46f] framed education as a path to liberation, encouraging learners to question their assumptions and transform their realities. Lewis [3] also emphasized the experiential and moral dimensions of learning, highlighting the importance of personal responsibility in the educational process. Such perspectives are increasingly influential in engineering education, where the ability to address complex, “wicked” problems [4] and engage in reflective practice is seen as vital for responsible and sustainable engineering work.
Recent scholarship reinforces the need to align engineering education with societal challenges and technological progress. For instance, Abdulwahed [5] proposes a model that bridges engineering education, innovation, and sustainable socioeconomic development, while Cardoso and Chanin [6] highlight the historical evolution of engineering education and its ongoing relevance in addressing contemporary demands.
Teaching in engineering presents unique challenges due to the discipline’s technical and multifaceted nature. Beyond mastering theoretical and practical knowledge, engineers must cultivate competencies that enable them to navigate ethical dilemmas, sustainability concerns, and the demands of technological innovation. Our approach includes coursework in academic ethics, project management, and social responsibility—key elements in training well-rounded professionals for the 21st century. Accreditation bodies worldwide require these soft skills to be embedded in the curriculum and evaluated through practical assignments, ensuring that graduates are not only competent but also adaptable and socially responsible. The American Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET) is an organization that stands firmly for academic excellence, ethical integrity, and collaborative innovation in higher education [7]. ABET argues that effective engineering education must ensure that graduates demonstrate not only technical proficiency but also abilities in ethical judgment, teamwork, communication, and lifelong learning. These are the core dimensions that align closely with the maturity model discussed here [7]. We recognize the emergence from a broad range of perspectives, experiences, and backgrounds. Outside the United States, mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) exist with other accreditation bodies and societies such as Engineers Australia (EA) [8] and the British Computer Society (BCS), with International Professional Engineers Agreements (IPEAs) now being a mainstream pathway [9].
The philosophical pursuit of wisdom has long influenced educational paradigms, particularly in electrical engineering, where mastery of technical knowledge is paramount. As Freire observed, education is a liberating force, empowering students with knowledge and critical awareness to contribute meaningfully to a dynamic and evolving society: “No one liberates anyone, no one liberates themselves alone: people liberate themselves in communion” [2, p. 46f]. Consequently, engineering education must also foster lifelong learning and continuous personal and professional development.
Electrical engineering is foundational to the operation of large-scale technical systems (LTSs) and critical infrastructure (CI). These systems underpin civic services, transportation networks, and telecommunications platforms that support vital sectors, including banking and retail. Today’s engineering systems are increasingly cyber–physical–social, incorporating computing, communication, and physical components. In this context, engineers must remain up-to-date and responsive to both technological breakthroughs and emerging risks. Continuing education not only sustains technical proficiency but also cultivates critical thinking, drives innovation, fosters organizational transformation, and enhances problem-solving capabilities.
Maturity of engineering education must be approached through multiple dimensions: curricular content, pedagogical methods, the development of academic competencies, and the integration of emerging technologies. Curricula must be both comprehensive and contemporary, emphasizing interdisciplinarity over narrow specialization and addressing high-impact topics such as energy sustainability, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. Furthermore, there is a growing need to promote collaboration and shared learning across related disciplines, including mechanical engineering, computer science, and project management.
In recent years, automation and biomedical engineering have posed unique educational challenges due to their profound social, legal, and ethical implications. The convergence of disciplines and the cascading effects of autonomous systems on employment, safety, and well-being underscore the urgent need for ethically grounded and forward-looking engineering education.
Literature Search
A Scopus search on the words “engineering student maturity” and “student maturity” yielded the following bibliometric results (Figures. 1 and 2). Figure 1 illustrates the annual publication volume on the topic of maturity in engineering education based on the search term “engineering AND student AND maturity.” The analysis reveals a significant increase in annual publications beginning around 2005, with a sharp upward trend starting in 2016 and notably reaching 33 publications for 2023 alone. Figure 2 illustrates the annual publication volume on the topic of student maturity, as determined by the search term “student AND maturity.” The analysis reveals a significant increase in annual publications beginning around the 1990s, with a sharp upward trend starting in 2015 and notably reaching 250 publications in 2024 alone.
Figure 1.
“Engineering student maturity” Scopus bibliometrics.
Figure 2.
“Student maturity” Scopus bibliometrics.
As shown, the growing academic interest in the themes of maturity and personal development in engineering education reflects a broader recognition of the need to train engineers who not only master technical skills but also possess the soft skills necessary to navigate ethical challenges and contribute meaningfully to society. An increasing number of scholars recommend that teaching methods in engineering shift toward more dynamic and student-centered approaches. Methods such as project-based learning (PBL), collaborative learning, and the use of both virtual and physical laboratories are essential for enabling students to apply theoretical concepts in practical contexts.
In addition to traditional curricular models, the conceive–design–implement–operate (CDIO) initiative provides a structured and practical framework for assessing and guiding curricular maturity in engineering education [10]. This framework aligns educational goals with real-world engineering processes by integrating technical knowledge with teamwork, ethical reasoning, innovation, and system-level thinking. Its emphasis on experiential learning throughout the lifecycle of design—from defining needs to operating working systems—helps ensure that engineering graduates are not only technically competent but also reflective, adaptable, and professionally mature. As such, CDIO offers a strong model for embedding maturity into engineering curricula in a way that bridges academic rigor with practical relevance [11].
One of the key strategies for enhancing teaching effectiveness is integrating educational technologies into the learning environment. The use of digital platforms, online communication tools, and multimedia resources has proved effective in facilitating instruction and increasing student engagement. Concurrently, the adoption of active learning methodologies, such as PBL, flipped classrooms, and team-based collaboration (e.g., addressing global challenges), places students at the heart of the educational experience, encouraging them to take ownership of their learning process [12]. Studies have consistently shown that these methodologies not only improve knowledge retention but also help develop essential competencies, including critical thinking, problem-solving, and teamwork [13]. Based on the recent findings of a systematic literature review in the last 24 years [14], it is evident that PBL serves as a suitable methodology for implementing a holistic pedagogical model within engineering education. However, there remains ample opportunity for further growth and exploration, particularly in categories such as “professional environments” and “simulation,” which exhibited robust evidence of effectiveness.
Educational and Academic Maturity
Academic maturity can be defined as the intellectual, emotional, and behavioral development of an individual within the educational context [2, p. 81]. It is reflected in a range of skills and attitudes, including autonomy, responsibility, time management, critical thinking, motivation, resilience, communication, collaboration, adaptability, ethical awareness, and integrity. In the 21st century, it is more important for society to cultivate individuals capable of sustaining a lifelong learning mindset, which requires maturity, than to cling to outdated models of rote education. There has been a continuous development of engineering education and training and an integrated process for encompassing the modernization of curricula. The past few years have brought the renewal of teaching methodologies, enhancement of professional skills, integration of emerging technologies, and promotion of employability and personal growth. The evolution of engineering education in recent decades has demonstrated a growing emphasis on the comprehensive development of students. Curriculum guidelines and academic programs have increasingly incorporated themes such as ethics, sustainability, and social responsibility, recognizing that engineering education must extend beyond technical proficiency.
Such a holistic approach is essential to meeting the complex challenges of the 21st century, which require not only technical expertise but also social and ethical awareness. In many contemporary frameworks, educational and academic maturity in engineering is associated with capacities that support lifelong learning. In a field marked by rapid technological advancement and shifting paradigms, engineers must remain adaptable and committed to ongoing learning throughout their careers. In this sense, educational and academic maturity is not a fixed endpoint but a dynamic, evolving process; one that supports the continuous growth of individuals throughout their academic and professional journeys.
To address the complex challenges of 21st-century engineering, it is essential to distinguish between educational maturity and learning maturity, two interrelated, yet distinct dimensions of academic and professional formation. Educational maturity refers to the institutional, curricular, and pedagogical structures that shape a student’s formal academic environment. It involves strategic components such as curriculum design, accreditation standards, teaching methods, resource allocation, and integration of ethical and interdisciplinary content. Educational maturity is typically system-driven, reflecting the institution’s capacity to offer relevant, future-ready educational pathways. Learning maturity, in contrast, centers on the student’s own levels of initiative, autonomy, reflection, and lifelong learning capability. This maturity includes attributes such as responsibility, critical thinking, adaptability, and personal motivation.
To address the complex challenges of 21st-century engineering, it is essential to distinguish between educational maturity and learning maturity, two interrelated, yet distinct dimensions of academic and professional formation.
While these dimensions support one another, conflating them can obscure essential dynamics in contemporary engineering education. By defining and applying them distinctly, this manuscript emphasizes how systems-level educational maturity can foster, but not replace, the deeply personal process of learning maturity (see Table 1).
Table 1. Dual Dimensions of Maturity in Engineering Education
Education Versus Learning
The relationship between teaching and learning is a central theme in educational philosophy and has been extensively explored by scholars over the years. In the essay Our English Syllabus, Lewis [3] highlights a key distinction: while basic education provides the foundational tools for learning, the learning process itself must be actively undertaken by the student. Learning requires ownership, initiative, and personal engagement. The quality of the educator is also vital: passion, expertise, agility, and real-world experience all help bring theory to life and enhance learners’ understanding.
Freire similarly argues that education should be an act of liberation, where learning is active and critical rather than passive and rote [2, p. 81]. This educational process involves a defined curriculum, specific pedagogical methods, and clear instructional goals. The curriculum comprises disciplines and content, while pedagogy refers to the strategies and techniques employed by educators to facilitate knowledge transfer. In contrast, learning is a broader, ongoing process that takes place both within and beyond the formal classroom setting. It is a personal and dynamic phenomenon, often self-directed and driven by individual interests and contextual needs. Continuous learning plays a critical role in fostering innovation and ensuring that knowledge gained in formal education is practically applied, particularly in engineering, where professionals must remain at the cutting edge of evolving technologies.
Though conceptually distinct, education and learning are deeply complementary. The authors of the article “Education in electrification for societal sustainability: History and philosophy” [15] emphasize the importance of an interdisciplinary and comprehensive curriculum that balances theoretical foundations with hands-on, practical experiences. They argue that this holistic approach is essential for preparing students to contribute meaningfully to global energy sustainability and for addressing contemporary challenges that demand not only technical expertise but also a wellrounded set of skills and values. Recognizing the role of universities and academia more broadly within the context of transdisciplinary research and innovation ecosystems is crucial in “strengthening academic excellence while also addressing the needs of society” [16]. By bringing stakeholders together—academia, industry, government, the third sector, and society—engineering students, and, for that matter, all students, are better able to gauge real-world problems and how they are an integral part of resolving them through their ethical practice and expertise [17].
Assuming Responsibility for Learning
Taking responsibility for one’s own learning is a fundamental component in the formation of engineers. This responsibility requires individuals to adopt an active, self-directed approach to their ongoing education, continually seeking new knowledge, skills, and experiences that extend beyond the boundaries of the formal curriculum. This perspective is eloquently captured in Our English Syllabus, where Lewis [3, p. 125] articulates a vision of learning, grounded in independence and intellectual courage:
“With these limitations, then, we present to you our proposal of reality. Here is your weapon, your spade, your fishing gear; go and prepare a dinner. Do not tell me that you would prefer a good menu of dishes from half the world prepared for you. You are too old for that. It is time for you to learn to contend with nature on your own. Furthermore, whom would you trust to draw up the menu? Our selection would be an effort to tie the future within our current knowledge and taste: nothing more could come out than what we had put in. It would be worse; it would be a sort of propaganda, hidden, unconscious, and omnipotent. Do you prefer that to the exploration of the entire country? Have you no disbelief, no skepticism?”
This powerful metaphor reinforces the idea that meaningful engineering education cannot be passively received—it must be discovered, questioned, and internalized through personal initiative.
Assuming responsibility for learning also involves effective management of time and resources. This responsibility is shared between educators and students through a process of collaborative inquiry. Teachers must cultivate an intellectually stimulating and psychologically safe environment that encourages curiosity and active participation. In parallel, students are expected to engage in the learning process fully. Encouraging engineering student involvement in internships, exchange programs, and real-world projects plays a crucial role in broadening perspectives and reinforcing autonomy. Equally important is the inclusion of diverse stakeholders, such as industry professionals, community members, and policymakers, in curriculum development and guest lectures, which enrich the learning ecosystem [18].
Empowering engineering students to make decisions about their own learning paths, whether through selecting research topics, joining extracurricular activities, or participating in student-led initiatives, helps develop both autonomy and responsibility. Group projects, in which each participant assumes a defined role, further instill teamwork, project management, and collaborative problem-solving skills. These experiences promote shared responsibility and mirror the dynamics of professional engineering practice.
Moreover, such collaborative learning models provide fertile ground for co-designing solutions to local challenges that can be scaled globally, especially when aligned with the public interest. This process benefits from both homogenous group efforts and the inclusion of diverse, multistakeholder perspectives, offering students an opportunity to engage with complex, real-world issues through a deeply participatory and socially responsive approach to education [19].
Holistic and Deep Perspective
Assuming responsibility for one’s own learning is fundamental to the comprehensive development of engineers. It is a continuous, self-directed journey in which the pursuit of knowledge stems from personal initiative and intrinsic motivation. Equally important are networking and collaboration. Building an academic and professional network and engaging with other engineers and specialists opens pathways to new learning experiences and development opportunities.
In today’s complex landscape, problem-solving increasingly requires multistakeholder and multidisciplinary engagement. Engineers must learn to collaborate across organizational boundaries, interacting with professionals from marketing, finance, product planning, and business development. Such collaboration should extend across institutions and even international borders, fostering global perspectives and cross-cultural understanding.
Managing virtual teams has also become an essential skill, requiring effective coordination, communication, and adaptability. Setting clear, realistic goals for both personal and academic development supports sustained focus and motivation and calls for a systematic, goal-oriented approach to growth and lifelong learning.
Avoiding Chronological Snobbery
The term “chronological snobbery” was coined by Lewis and Owen Barfield and first appeared in Lewis’s [20, p. 206] autobiographical work Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life. Chronological snobbery refers to a form of appeal to novelty, the assumption that ideas, values, or technologies from the past are inherently inferior simply because they are outdated. In the field of engineering, where technological advancement is rapid and constant, this mindset can lead to a distorted perception of progress. Overemphasis on what is new may result in the undervaluing of earlier contributions that remain relevant and foundational.
The history of engineering is rich with discoveries and innovations that continue to inform and support contemporary practices. Ignoring this legacy can weaken students’ conceptual understanding and discourage critical reflection. Within engineering education and teaching, it is, therefore, vital to recognize and avoid certain attitudes that can be detrimental to the learning environment, among them chronological snobbery, a resistance to open debate, and an air of intellectual superiority [21].
Chronological snobbery argues explicitly that the thought, science, or artistic expression of earlier periods is intrinsically less valid or insightful. It implies that because society has advanced technologically, people in the past were necessarily less intelligent or capable. To counter this bias, engineering curricula should intentionally include the history and foundational principles of the disciplines. This can be effectively achieved through pedagogical approaches that promote reflection on the historical significance and context of technological development.
Looking Along and Looking At
In the training of engineers, educational maturity can be significantly deepened by incorporating the philosophical concepts of “looking along” and “looking at” [20]. These complementary perspectives offer a dual approach that enhances both understanding and practice, helping students balance experiential learning with critical analysis.
Engineering education should prioritize the development of analytical thinking and sound reasoning while actively discouraging false assumptions and uncritical acceptance of information.
“Looking along,” in particular, invites students to engage directly with systems and technologies, developing knowledge through lived experience. For example, in laboratory settings, students do not merely study the theory of electrical circuits; they construct and test them, gaining insights through hands-on observation and experimentation. “Looking at,” on the other hand, allows them to step back, analyzing systems critically, questioning assumptions, and considering the broader implications of technological choices. By integrating both approaches, students not only deepen their technical competence but also cultivate a sense of ethical responsibility and awareness of the societal impacts of their work. This dual perspective supports the development of engineers who are not only skilled but also reflective, conscientious, and committed to sustainable innovation.
The interplay between looking along and looking at thus offers a compelling and transformative pedagogical model. It supports an education that is simultaneously practical and critically reflective, one that prepares future engineers to be versatile, ethically grounded, and responsive to the evolving demands of society.
Beyond Subjectivism and Reductionism
Information in engineering education must be presented clearly and objectively to minimize the influence of personal biases and subjective interpretations that can hinder knowledge acquisition and critical thinking. Subjectivity, which involves relying on personal perspectives or assumptions, can compromise the accuracy and reliability required for producing and applying technical knowledge. In a discipline like engineering, where precision is essential, minor inaccuracies or misinterpretations can lead to significant misunderstandings, particularly in areas such as electrical measurements, instrumentation, and troubleshooting. To address this, engineering education should prioritize the development of analytical thinking and sound reasoning while actively discouraging false assumptions and uncritical acceptance of information.
Another related challenge is reductionism, which simplifies complex realities by focusing narrowly on a limited set of variables while disregarding broader implications. This tendency is especially problematic in engineering contexts. For instance, when designing electrical systems, an exclusive focus on energy efficiency, without adequately considering safety, can result in incomplete or even hazardous solutions. A holistic, system-oriented perspective is essential to ensure that all relevant factors are addressed and that solutions are both practical and sustainable.
These concerns are reinforced by our own experiences as engineering educators. We have seen students struggle when they apply narrow, formu-la-based reasoning without questioning assumptions or considering broader system interactions. Likewise, design teams that focus on a single parameter, such as energy efficiency, often overlook critical factors like safety or sustainability. While literature addressing reductionism in engineering education is emerging, our firsthand observations highlight the need for teaching that integrates analytical rigor with a holistic, systems-oriented mindset [22].
This critique of reductionist approaches in engineering aligns with broader discussions in sustainability and systems thinking, such as the work of Balanay and Halog [23], who emphasized that reductionism often overlooks the interconnected nature of complex systems, highlighting the need for more holistic, systems-based strategies in both education and practice. This concern is echoed by Camelia and Ferris [24], who observed that a predominantly reductionist and mechanistic mindset has long characterized engineering thinking, underscoring the need for a more holistic, systems-oriented approach.
Engineering Codes of Ethics
In addition to fostering clarity, objectivity, and holistic thinking, engineering education must also be grounded in professional ethical standards. Organizations such as IEEE, ABET, and EA emphasize that engineering practice is not solely a technical endeavor, but a moral one. IEEE’s code of ethics calls on engineers to prioritize safety, avoid conflicts of interest, and improve understanding of technology’s societal implications. Similarly, ABET’s criteria for accrediting engineering programs emphasize ethical responsibility as a core student outcome, requiring graduates to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in global and societal contexts. EA’s code of ethics and its guidelines on professional conduct likewise stress values such as integrity, honesty, and respect for the public good. By integrating these ethical frameworks into the curriculum, engineering education helps students understand that technical precision must be paired with professional accountability, ensuring that the systems they design are not only effective, but also ethical and trustworthy in their real-world application.
Fostering Mutual Learning in the Classroom
One of the most important challenges in education is fostering a culture of mutual collaboration between teachers and students. Traditional hierarchical dynamics, where the teacher is seen as the sole authority, can hinder the learning process and limit students’ engagement and autonomy. Rather than relying on rigid structures where power asymmetries prevail (e.g., teachers assigning grades), it is essential to cultivate a collaborative learning environment characterized by dynamic, reciprocal exchange.
Instructors should remain open to feedback on their teaching practices, fostering an atmosphere where continuous improvement is encouraged by all participants. Price et al. [25] observed that feedback functions best when it unfolds as a dialog, actively engaging students in shaping the learning process. Similarly, Winstone and Pitt [26] plainly affirmed that “feedback is a twoway street,” reflecting its key role in fostering healthier teacher–student relationships and more effective learning. By integrating students’ experiences into the educational process, instructors enrich learning and foster greater engagement and motivation.
The concept of “teachers as learners,” alongside “other stakeholders as learners,” adds a valuable dimension to any project-based or experiential learning activity. Role-playing and scenario-based exercises are particularly practical in this context. In society, solving complex problems requires collective effort; individuals contribute different perspectives and experiences, from novice to expert, depending on the situation. Each voice must be valued in the problem-solving process. No question is too simple to ask. Expertise develops alongside academic awareness through exploratory inquiry. The more specialized the problem, the more nuanced and collaborative the knowledge required to address it. Learning by doing is a powerful strategy for both students and instructors, provided that the instructor possesses the necessary facilitation skills [27, p. 14f].
The role of instructors in engineering education is fundamental in fostering students’ academic and professional maturity. Teachers serve as mentors, guides, and facilitators, helping students to connect theory with real-world application. Storytelling, for instance, is a powerful pedagogical tool that not only engages learners but also imparts contextualized knowledge. Instructors are not merely transmitters of content; they help students develop analytical, ethical, and critical thinking skills. In Experience and Education, Dewey [28, p. 87] says, “The teacher’s own personality is the most potent of all influences.” They not only convey theory but also model values and thought processes, guiding students to understand the broader ethical and societal implications of engineering practice. A core responsibility of instructors is to model ethical behavior. Engineering projects frequently involve ethical concerns such as public safety and environmental responsibility. Teachers must uphold ethical standards in both teaching and research while also guiding students to reflect on the ethical dimensions of their technological decisions, even if they are not enrolled in a formal course titled “Ethics.” Ethical reflection should permeate the entire curriculum, not superficially, but in ways that give deeper meaning to technical tasks and encourage thoughtful questioning. This is how the microlevel of technical work connects meaningfully with the meso- and macrolevels of social and environmental impact.
The role of engineering educators is complex and evolving. They are not only responsible for delivering content but also for shaping the learning environment, mentoring students, modeling ethical behavior, and committing to lifelong learning. By embracing mutual collaboration and creating space for reflective dialog, instructors contribute to the holistic development of future engineers.
Finally, to further operationalize the maturity-based framework presented in the previous section, we identify four core principles of maturity in engineering education that serve as anchors for both curricular design and professional formation. These principles translate the abstract dimensions of educational maturity (institutional/system-driven) and learning maturity (student/self-driven) into actionable components that are relevant to both engineering educators and sociotechnical practitioners.
Table 2 presents each principle: 1) mutual learning; 2) historical and ethical framing; 3) systems thinking; and 4) reflective agency, alongside its key rationale, indicators of maturity, and a practical vignette illustrating its implementation in an educational or applied engineering context. Together, these principles provide a structured way to assess and cultivate maturity in engineering programs, bridging technical competence with ethical foresight, interdisciplinary engagement, and lifelong learning capabilities. Table 2 thus illustrates how these principles can be integrated into teaching, curriculum development, and PBL to support the emergence of reflective, socially responsible engineers.
Table 2. Principles of Maturity in Engineering Education
Finally, institutions such as Olin College, Harvey Mudd College, and the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology—all of which sustain some of the highest standards of engineering education in the United States—offer exemplary models for fostering student maturity. Their combination of small class sizes, close faculty engagement, and PBL environments requires significant student maturity and consistently leads to high academic performance.
Engineering education in the 21st century must advance beyond traditional models of technical instruction to cultivate maturity at both systemic and individual levels. The framework for maturity in engineering education distinguishes between educational maturity, the institutional capacity to structure ethically grounded, interdisciplinary curricula, and learning maturity, the student’s reflective agency and adaptability that support lifelong learning. To translate this framework into practice, we proposed four guiding principles of maturity: 1) mutual learning; 2) historical and ethical framing; 3) systems thinking; and 4) reflective agency. Each principle anchors a dimension of maturity in actionable educational strategies and sociotechnical relevance. Together, they promote a shift from hierarchical, content-centric models toward reflective, ethical, and collaborative learning environments that consciously bridge engineering with societal needs. By embracing this maturity-driven approach, engineering programs can better prepare graduates not only to solve complex technical challenges, but also to act as thoughtful and responsible participants in shaping a more sustainable and equitable technological future.
References
1. J. Piaget, The Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child. New York, NY, USA : Orion, 1970.
2. P. Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 1st ed. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil : Paz e Terra, 1970.
3. C. S. Lewis, Our English Syllabus. London, U.K. : Oxford Univ. Press, 1939.
4. H. W. J. Rittel and M. M. Webber, “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning,” Policy Sci., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 155–169, Jun. 1973.
5. M. Abdulwahed, “Technology innovation and Engineering' education and entrepreneurship (TIEE) in engineering schools: Novel model for elevating national knowledge based economy and socioeconomic sustainable development,” Sustainability, vol. 9, no. 2, p. 171, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.3390/su9020171.
6. M. Cardoso and R. M. Chanin, “The history of engineering education: Learning from the past to design the future,” Res., Soc. Develop., vol. 11, no. 11, Aug. 2022, Art. no. e364111133606, doi: 10.33448/rsdv11i11.33606.
7. ABET, “ABET introduces new credentialing courses to elevate educators’ skills and enhance student outcomes,” Aug. 23, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.abet.org/abet-introduces-new-credentialing-courses-to-elevate-educators-skills-and-enhance-student-outcomes/
8. Engineers Australia, “Professional Standards Framework,” Aug. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/about-us/professional-standards-framework
9. Engineers Australia, “Mutual Recognition Agreements,” May 15, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/membership/mutual-recognition-agreements
10. P. Armstrong, “CDIO: An international initiative to reform engineering education,” presented at the Int. Conf. Teach. Learn., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://pureadmin.qub.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/652190966/2008_TAR_CDIO.pdf
11. E. F. Crawley, Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach, 2nd ed. Cham, Switzerland : Springer, 2014.
12. Arizona State University, “Advancing innovation in education to create positive change for humanity,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://pi.education.asu.edu/
13. S. Freeman, “Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics,” Proc. Nat.Acad. Sci. USA, vol. 111, no. 23, pp. 8410–8415, Jun. 2014, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
14. S. Lavado-Anguera, P.-J. Velasco-Quintana, and M.-J. Terrón-López, “Project-based learning (PBL) as an experiential pedagogical methodology in engineering education: A review of the literature,” Educ. Sci., vol. 14, no. 6, p. 617, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.3390/educsci14060617.
15. M. G. Simões and P. F. Ribeiro, “Education in electrification for societal sustainability: History and philosophy,” IEEE Electrific. Mag., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 89–99, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1109/MELE.2024.3386045.
16. The HIBAR Research Alliance, Jun. 25, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://hibar-research.org/
17. M. M. Crow and W. B. Dabars, The Fifth Wave: The Evolution of American Higher Education. Baltimore, MD, USA : The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2020.
18. S. Zeivots, “What co-design has taught us about transformative practice and academic development,” in Transformative Practice in Higher Education: Innovative Approaches to Teaching and Learning. Evanston, IL, USA : Routledge, 2025, pp. 155–163, doi: 10.4324/9781003503149-21.
19. R. Abbas et al., “Public interest technology for innovation in global development: Recommendations for launching PIT projects,” IEEE Trans. Technol. Soc., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 14–23, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1109/TTS.2024.3375431.
20. C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life. London, U.K. : Geoffrey Bles, 1955.
21. P. F. Ribeiro and K. Michael, “Editorial: Pride and jealousy in academia,” IEEE Trans. Technol. Soc., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 120–128, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.1109/ TTS.2025.3553212.
22. D. Meadows, Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT, USA : Chelsea Green Publishing, 2008.
23. R. Balanay and A. Halog, “A review of reductionist versus systems perspectives towards 'doing the right strategies right' for circular economy implementation,” Systems, vol. 9, no. 2, p. 38, May 2021, doi: 10.3390/systems9020038.
24. F. Camelia and T. L. J. Ferris, “Systems thinking in systems engineering,” in Proc. INCOSE Int. Symp., 2016, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1657–1674, doi: 10.1002/j.2334-5837.2016.00252.x.
25. M. Price, K. Handley, and J. Millar, “Feedback: Focusing attention on engagement,” Stud. Higher Educ., vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 879–896, Dec. 2011, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2010.483513.
26. N. Winstone and E. Pitt, “Feedback is a two-way street. So why does the NSS only look one way?,” Times Higher Education, London, U.K., Tech. Rep., Sep. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/feedback-two-way-street-so-why-does-nss-only-look-one-way
27. D. A. Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA : Prentice-Hall, 1984.
28. J. Dewey, Experience and Education. New York, NY, USA : Macmillan, 1938.
Authors
Federal University of Itajubá (UNIFEI) Itajubá, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Jones Nambundo is a graduate student of engineering at the Federal University of Itajubá, Itajubá 37500-903, Brazil.
Hope College, Holland, MI, USA
Marcelo Godoy Simões is a visiting professor of engineering at Hope College, Holland, MI 49423, USA. He is a Fellow of IEEE.
University of Sydney Business School The University of Sydney, Darlington, Australia
Katina Michael is a professor and the director of the MBA (Technology and Digital Strategy) at the University of Sydney Business School, Darlington, NSW 2006, Australia. She is a Senior Member of IEEE.
Institute of Electrical Energy (ISEE) Federal University of Itajubá (UNIFEI) Itajubá, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Paulo F. Ribeiro is a professor in the Electric Energy Institute at the Federal University of ItajubÃ, Itajubà 37500-903, Brazil. He is a Life Fellow of IEEE.
Citation: J. Nambundo, M. Godoy Simões, K. Michael and P. F. Ribeiro, "A Maturity-Based Engineering Learning Approach: Reflective, Ethical, and Adaptive," in IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 56-67, June 2026, doi: 10.1109/MTS.2026.3674874.