What might be computing’s equivalent of the cradle to cradle approach?
What is missing from current graduates that can be expressed as learning outcomes?
Schaller (1993) argued that sustainability both benefits from and is hampered by imprecision:
“as a destination, sustainability is like truth and justice — concepts not readily captured in concise definitions”.
We believe, however, it vital that sustainability be expressed at learning outcome level in courses. Copernicus (2005) argues that learning outcomes will be central in the adoption of sustainable development as they underpin the qualifications system. They also guide academics as to content of their courses.
At one level it would be an easy step to add a statement to the effect of “…and do this in a sustainable manner” to each course. At another, one could examine each course for sustainability. Specific learning outcomes could arise from this: for example a hardware course could have “Apply an assessment of Energy Star for a given product”, a networking course could have “Develop a communication system that can operate as a sustainability enabler in a developing country”.
An underlying systems approach or even attitudinal change is harder to specify in this manner. Second Nature (nd) presents a sustainability curriculum framework. It would be a useful first step in identifying a suite of learning outcomes, for research to assess computing against each of these “critical sustainability themes”.
In design education, Cao et al. (2006) take a different approach. They described a course based on a “cradle to cradle (C2C) design model” (McDonough et al. 2003) . This course, they argue fills “an apparel and interior education and curriculum void related to the environmental impact of design and merchandising decisions”. The cradle to cradle approach assumes “that products can be designed to have another cycle or nutrient function after their useful lives”. Cao et al. used a problem based learning approach to “bring the science and industrial application together”.
Cao’s course is explicitly science based but within a design context “The topics of this course will include the environmental impact of raw material, manufacturing, dyeing, finishing, product lifecycle, and other issues related to apparel and interior design’s influence on the environment”, the C2C model is explicitly used in the curriculum document and the learning outcomes are clearly stated;
“After taking this course, interior and apparel design and merchandising students have a better understanding of the relationships among their design and buying decisions and environmental issues”.
Ridener (1999) undertook a pretest/post test study of students completing a course in sustainability. Business students responded less to inclusion of environmental components than other students of other discipline majors (eg non environmental science students). He suggests that the poor response was due to a lack of critical-constructivist teaching in business and concludes that changes need to go beyond an “environmentalising” of the business curriculum.
Computing for Sustainability 
c!
August 9, 2007
I very much admire McDonough/Braungart’s “Cradle to Cradle” design principles, and I see them as going beyond sustainability to what we really want, which is sustainable abundance. (I’m sure you’ve read “Cradle to Cradle,” but if you haven’t, you absolutely must.) The principles aren’t new, of course; you can see pieces of them in Aldo Leopold’s land ethic, the tenets of permaculture, and other areas. To me, however, the message of cradle to cradle can be summed up in two ways:
– System of Physics: ” ‘Away’ has gone away.”
– System of Ethics: Humans are not inherently destructive.
Educators can turn the first point into learning objectives in a variety of ways. Variations of, “have you accounted for all mass flows at all stages of the product lifecycle?” is what I’m thinking about.
The second point, which I personally feel is the most important point, is much harder to teach and measure. I believe that it is a true assertion, but I don’t know if people who don’t believe in it are just as “in the right.” After all, there are many ethical systems out there.
Carl
November 26, 2007
Where does intention fit in education?
Sparking the fire, not filling the bucket- how do we provide learning spaces for learners to clarify their intention.
Bill McDonough says ‘Design is the first signal of human intention’. He asks ‘Do we intend to cause Climate Change and ecological destruction?’ If we dont intend to, if its not part of our plan… then its part of our defacto plan- because we have no other plan. Thats where Cradle to Cradle comes in.
Their design questions themselves , the concepts of ‘legislation is a signal of design failure’, separation of biological and technical nutrient cycles, use of the fractal tile framework are also critical.
A simple resource for people to get better access to Cradle to Cradle and perhaps further incentive to by the book and begin the work is Bill McDonough’s 20 min TED presentation:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/104
or google his Bioneers presentation.
Also:
– The Netherlands recently hosted the 1st full conference specifically on Cradle to Cradle:
http://www.letscradle.nl/
– Berlin will host a conference in Nov 08 with between ‘2000-3000’ Cradle to Cradle products.
and to keep up to date with like resources:
Koen’s Cradle to Cradle Chronology: http://iobserve.wordpress.com/cradle-to-cradle/