Findings

Student ratings given

Student 1: Silver
Student 2: Bronze/silver

Explanations of ratings

Student 1:
“Only one optional module had an integrated sustainability focus. Core/mandatory modules briefly cover issues of people, planet and profit (e.g. aspects of social justice, etc.) but there is no explicit reference to sustainability or any assessed work on sustainability.”

Student 2:
“Of all of my mandatory modules, none of them include joined up planet, people and profit, nor assess at least 1 of these spheres. The only prospect for a bronze medal had triple bottom line indirectly referred to in one of the assessed courseworks. However, overall, my course lacks the meeting of criteria for this rating system”.

Project team comments

See postgraduate rating criteria for reference.

Although student 1 gave this course a silver rating, they don’t say whether there are any relevant learning activities that go beyond content. As they do say “issues are only briefly covered” though, we could infer that at best this is actually bronze and not quite ‘EfS’. They are clear that the course is not gold, because they say there is “no assessed work in sustainability”.

Student 2 appears unsure. The explanation given indicates the evidence for it being joined up (i.e. to hit bronze) is weak in its visibility to some students. A course team might find that useful to reflect on. The rating then appears to hinge on one module/unit, but without understanding more about “triple bottom line indirectly referred to” it’s difficult to say if this assessment would count.

Student rating given

Bronze

Explanation of rating

“There was some relevant teaching and assessment on a 2^nd year optional module. The module taught about issues of environmental justice and responsibility, but also discussed the social and economic implications of climate change and sustainability in-depth by reflecting upon and engaging with various case studies.

The assessment provided the opportunity to select any case study and engage with it in extensive detail to provide a comprehensive analysis of the challenges of sustainability”.

Project team comments

See undergraduate rating criteria for reference.

If this module were compulsory, it could achieve silver as there appears to be joined up triple bottom line learning built into an assessment.

However, the challenge here is that this is an optional module, so not all students are getting the learning, and in fact very few students could be taking part.

As the module does have a potentially strong assessment though, it could be considered a ‘stepping stone’ to a course achieving silver if it were made compulsory.

On these grounds, we can see why this student applied the bronze rating, but we would encourage them to push for EfS to move from the margins to the mainstream – either making this module compulsory, or taking some of its great learning into other compulsory modules.

Student ratings given

Student 1: No medal

Student 2: Bronze

Explanation of ratings

Student 1: “The course didn’t have a joined-up sustainability approach; environmental, social and economic sustainability were never considered as intertwined areas. One compulsory unit did have sustainability in the title, but we were just asked to choose a sustainability problem of the industry and to try to find a solution based on one of the UN Global Goals. However, this approach didn’t allow us to consider the intersections between the different aspect of sustainability.”

Student 2: “The course did not address all 3 people, profit, planet. Some issues were mentioned in passing but there was no holistic view. There was a project where we had to find a solution linked to one of the sustainability goals. But there was no evaluation of the outcome based on how much it actually helped with the problem. Most projects were supposed to have an aspect of sustainability but that was considered a bonus and not a requirement. The course does mention sustainability and the SDGs, but there is no joined up learning around the 3 p’s, which make me lean towards not giving a medal. But since it has some relevant teaching will give a bronze medal.”

Project team comments

See postgraduate rating criteria for reference.

Student 2 takes a generous view, but both students give very similar accounts of their experiences here, and are clear that there is ‘no joined up sustainability approach” – the requirement for bronze.

This course has the potential to achieve silver or gold by getting students to look a “sustainability problems in the fashion industry” with a more triple bottom line lens seeking systems thinking solutions.

Student rating given

Silver

Explanation of rating

“We had a compulsory module with sustainability in the title, which is good. But I think this module focused more on the old theories or philosophies about sustainability. In my opinion, it could highlight more on the modern sustainability theories and how those theories are applied to the current case or businesses. Also, we only have this sustainability module in the first year, that’s a pity that there are no further modules related to it in the second or third year, if I remember correctly”.

Project team comments

See undergraduate rating criteria for reference.

Although this student has given a silver rating to their course, they don’t mention ‘assessment’ linked to joined up sustainability learning (the main criteria for silver) so it’s not clear that it definitely meets that standard.

It’s also not clear what they mean by ‘old theories or philosophies about sustainability’. This could mean the course is covering silo ‘issues’ more like they would in an earlier era of environmental management in businesses rather than real joined up sustainability learning that is more about fundamental and integrated systems change in how businesses operate and strategise. If this were the case, it might not meet the criteria to get a medal at all!

Student rating given

No medal

Explanation of rating

“No explanation of triple bottom line and global goals. All pressure on one module which is very short (very little formal education delivery from other modules). Supposedly sustainability is considered in assessment but there is no basis understanding/teaching of sustainability”.

PROJECT TEAM COMMENTS

See undergraduate rating criteria for reference.

This student is very clear that there is no joined up sustainability learning so the course achieves no medal. What’s interesting here is that they say ‘supposedly sustainability is considered in assessment’ suggesting there is a mis-match between what’s being presented to students in the assessment brief and what’s actually being understood as the expectation for it.

STUDENT RATINGS GIVEN

Student 1: Silver

Student 2: Gold

Student 3: Silver

EXPLANATION OF RATINGS

Student 1: “3 compulsory modules had joined-up sustainability learning – one in first year and 2 in second year:

• Module 1 – The assessment asked us to illuminate the way language has the power to entertain, satirise, stereotype, amuse, shape identities, inspire, change social realities, and challenge societal structures (including sustainability issues).
• Module 2 – We were encouraged to look for various underlying narratives in literature, film, magazines, etc., and the way they can inspire certain stories to live by. It required subject knowledge as well as sustainability knowledge, challenging the story of separation within our society.
• Module 3 – Asked us to undertake a project that inspires change. It linked mainly with environmental teaching and social sustainability, without economic considerations though.

Student 2: “I remember a module with joined-up sustainability leaning which was very interesting. The tutor used wide-ranging and in -depth documents from different cultures to embed the sustainability concept into our studying and life”.

Student 3: “In the 2nd Year of the English course there is a module that is intently focused on sustainability, especially in terms of people and the natural environment, and creating a balance between profit/capitalism and more compassionate and eco-conscious ways of living. The module assessment was wholly focused on analysing the Eco-linguistics of literature, and how they created positive outcomes for the planet and society. Each lecture was based on different cultural and ideological attitudes to Ecology and the natural world”.

PROJECT TEAM COMMENTS

See undergraduate rating criteria for reference.

Whilst student 2 rated the course gold, their answer is very brief and doesn’t give details of what their learning looked like, or if it was assessed.

Students 1 and 3 provide much stronger explanations both of what triple bottom line learning looked like and how this was embedded in assessment e.g. “analysing the ecolinguistics of literature and how they created positive outcomes…”

It looks clearly like this course merits silver at least, but it’s not clear that the EfS learning is happening in the final/third year of study to fully assure it reaches gold.

STUDENT RATINGS GIVEN

Student 1: Bronze

Student 2: No medal

Student 3: No medal

EXPLANATION OF RATINGS

Student 1: “In a second year module that has recently become mandatory, we were given the brief to create two educational games around the theme of climate change. This helps combine the students’ creativity with their willingness to save the planet. None of the assessments relate to sustainability though and we are not assessed at all on our ability to help save the planet. (Instead focused on how high quality the game is and what aspects of it we have introduced as new mechanics)”.

Student 2: “None of my courses modules really cover sustainability as it’s mostly a software development course”.

Student 3: “It never gets mention in our course at all and we mainly on the computers all of the time”.

PROJECT TEAM COMMENTS

See undergraduate rating criteria for reference.

What’s interesting in these ratings is that student 1 is in second year, student 2 in first year, and student 3 in 4^th year.

As student 1 says the module only recently became ‘mandatory’ it’s likely student 3 didn’t get this learning (as they describe!) and student 1 won’t receive this learning until next year.

Although student 1 isn’t completely clear that climate change is viewed with a triple bottom line lens, we think bronze is a fair assessment and this is a good example of building in some sustainability thinking to a very technical degree specialism.