SUSTAINABILITY AND CRITICAL THINKING IN CIVIL

ENGINEERING CURRICULUM
By Thomas J. Siller1

ABSTRACT: This paper describes a method for presenting concepts of sustainable development to first-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECH on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

year civil engineering students using pedagogical techniques related to critical thinking development. Sus-
tainable development is an emerging area of environmental management that is important to civil engi-
neering students. The concept can be associated with most design-related projects. In addition, the
development of students’ abilities to think critically about engineering problems and design projects is an
important educational objective. Explicit methods for developing students’ critical thinking skills have been
adapted for the first-year civil engineering curriculum. The development of critical thinking skills is com-
bined with the coverage of sustainable development concepts in this approach. This combination was chosen
because the issue of sustainable development exhibits many of the characteristics of ill-structured problems
that require critical thinking. Therefore, the combination of critical thinking pedagogy and sustainable
development concepts provides an important contribution to the future education of civil engineering stu-
dents.

INTRODUCTION ful, responsible thinking that facilitates good judgment be-

A common goal for faculty is to find ways to encourage
students to think critically about course materials. Critical
thinking skills are necessary for students both during their
time in school and their postgraduate careers. Unfortu-
nately, students do not always develop these thinking
skills on their own, but require training and encourage-
ment. In this paper, an approach is described to stimulate
critical thinking by undergraduate civil engineering stu-
dents.
The primary purpose of institutions of higher education
is to foster student intellectual growth (Damon 1990).
Trow (1989) states that the goal is to develop citizens with
‘‘quality of mind.’’ Kronholm (1996) gives a more con-
crete definition by stating: ‘‘This intellectual growth, in
the form of students’ improved capacity as critical think-
ers who are capable of reflective judgment should be a
primary goal for higher education.’’ These and other au-
thors stress the development of students’ ability to think,
instead of the ability of students to absorb facts.
In an analysis on what constitutes a quality curriculum
in higher education, Haworth and Conrad (1997) con-
cluded that when a program includes critical dialog be-
tween the students and faculty, students have a ‘‘richer
learning experience that noticeably enhanced their growth
and development.’’ Therefore, it is important to foster this
type of intellectual growth.
According to Lipman (1988) ‘‘critical thinking is skill-
1
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Colorado State Univ., Fort Col-
lins, CO 80523-1372.
Note. Discussion open until December 1, 2001. To extend the closing
date one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager
of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review
and possible publication on May 3, 1999; revised December 12, 2000.
This paper is part of the Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering
Education and Practice, Vol. 127, No. 3, July, 2001. 䉷ASCE, ISSN
1052-3928/01/0003-0104–0108/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No.
20888.
cause it: (1) relies upon criteria, (2) is self-correcting; and
(3) is sensitive to context.’’ Lipman’s definition is similar
to the description given by Dewey (1933) who places em-
phasis on an explicit understanding that uncertainties exist
in most problem formulations. King and Kitchener (1994)
add to this definition by placing importance on recognition
of epistemic assumptions (beliefs about knowledge) as
part of what places critical thinking in the broader context
of reflective judgment. The need to have students better
understand their epistemic assumptions and how those as-
sumptions affect their solutions is a main motivator for
the work described herein.
Recent research (King and Kitchener 1994; Kronholm
1996; Haworth and Conrad 1997) provides guidance in
establishing curricula to develop students’ ability to think
critically/reflectively. At the outset it must be stated that
the purpose of this work is not to test the theories of these
researchers, but to show how their methods can be inte-
grated with current engineering curricula. It is assumed a
priori that their methods have been validated through their
testing. The concern is how to make proper use of these
approaches to develop critical/reflective thinking skills in
undergraduate engineering students.
In the following section, the importance of critical/re-
flective thinking as it relates to education is discussed. The
concept of sustainable development is then briefly dis-
cussed and related to engineering education as an example
topic for critical/reflective development. Finally, example
exercises on sustainable development are presented to
show how the general theories have application in engi-
neering classes.
CRITICAL THINKING
Before attempting to develop the critical thinking abil-
ities of students, two questions need to be answered: (1)
What is meant by critical/reflective thinking?; and (2)
How can it be developed? The introduction provides a

104 / JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE / JULY 2001

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2001.127:104-108.

 brief definition of what is meant by critical thinking. This
definition is now expanded.
Some of the earliest thoughts on critical/reflective
thinking are attributed to John Dewey (1933). His premise
was that reflective thinking involves bringing ‘‘closure’’
to uncertain or problematic situations where ‘‘there is no
way to apply a formula to derive a correct solution and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECH on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
no way to prove definitively that a proposed solution is
correct.’’ For situations where these two elements are
missing, there is little need for reflecting thinking.
These concepts of uncertainty and lack of an absolute
unique correct solution are important to engineering ed-
ucation and practice. For example, in engineering design,
typically there is no one correct solution to most prob-
lems, instead choices among many possible solutions must
be made. Design often involves making judgments among
design alternatives in an environment where data may be
both lacking and uncertain.
Recent research has given greater substance to our un-
derstanding of critical thinking. King and Kitchener
(1994) go into detail on the developmental stages of rea-
soning that leads to reflective thinking. A key element
identified in their work is the development and growth of
the learner measured by seven stages of ‘‘epistemic cog-
nition.’’ This refers to the student’s ability to evaluate
knowledge claims, i.e., what validity (certainty) can be
associated with some token of knowledge, and to subse-
quently defend their points of view concerning an issue.
King and Kitchener (1994) share the point of view ex-
pressed earlier by Dewey that uncertainty exists and must
be handled. The seven stages of progression (Table 1) start
with students believing that all knowledge is certain and
in the possession of authorities. Students then progress to
different levels of acknowledging that uncertainties exist,
until finally they realize that ‘‘knowledge is uncertain and
must be understood in relationship to context and evi-
dence.’’ When students reach this latter stage, they are
better prepared to make critical/reflective judgments.
Is this type of thinking important to civil engineering
students? Schön (1987) provides an interesting example
TABLE 1. Stages of Development in Critical and Reflective
Thinking (King and Kitchener 1994)
Stage of
development Characteristics
1 Knowledge is assumed to exist absolutely and con-
cretely, it can be understood by direct observation.
2 Knowledge is certain but some people do not have ac-
cess to it.
3 Knowledge is absolutely certain in some areas and tem-
porarily uncertain in other areas.
4 Knowledge is uncertain because of limitations of the
knower.
5 Interpretation is inherent in all understanding, no knowl-
edge is certain.
6 Knowledge is uncertain and must be understood in re-
lationship to context and evidence.
7 Knowledge is the outcome of a process of reasonable
inquiry in which solutions to ill-structures problems
are constructed.
JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE / JULY 2001 / 105
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2001.127:104-108.
in which reflective thinking of the nature described above
is required of civil engineers. ‘‘Civil engineers, for ex-
ample, know how to build roads suited to the conditions
of a particular site and specifications. They draw upon
their knowledge of soil conditions, materials, and con-
struction technologies to define grades, surfaces and di-
mensions. When they must decide what road to build,
however, or whether to build it at all, their problem is not
solvable by the application of technical knowledge, not
even by the sophisticated techniques of decision theory.
They face a complex and ill-defined mélange of topog-
raphy, financial, economic, environmental, and political
factors.’’
Lewis draws out the same example in his book related
to the development of the U.S. interstate highway system
(Lewis 1997). He says that many of the problems caused
by the interstate highway are the result of the engineer
training that de-emphasizes the humanities and ‘‘engi-
neering hubris.’’ He characterized engineers as people fo-
cused on ‘‘the structure itself . . . rather than the structure
in relation to the land.’’ To Lewis, the civil engineers who
designed the interstate highway system could deal with
facts but not with the broader issues of society. This ech-
oes Schön’s comment about making choices about what
highway to build, not how to build it. The question of
what to build requires judgments to be made in a social
context, which comprises greater uncertainty than does the
question of how to build something. Therefore, it is rea-
sonable to conclude that the development of civil engi-
neers should include the enhancement of abilities to make
good critical/reflective judgments.
Implementation
Using the work of King and Kitchener (1994), the sec-
ond question posed above may now be answered. How
can reflective thinking be developed? Both King and
Kitchener and Kronholm have provided answers to this
question. King and Kitchener provide a series of instruc-
tional goals for students that are matched to the student’s
level of ‘‘epistemic cognition.’’ For example, when stu-
dents believe knowledge is certain, one educational goal
is to ‘‘accept that there may be several opinions about a
controversial issue, none of which is known to be abso-
lutely correct.’’ Their model continues in this fashion
through seven developmental stages. Although their
model presents educational goals for each stage, a more
direct, easy to follow approach is needed.
Kronholm (1996) provides an instructional model based
on King and Kitchener’s work that has been tested in a
classroom setting of environmental science education. Ta-
ble 2 provides the activities set forth in the model. The
model describes seven phases of instruction and the re-
lated activity. Kronholm’s (1996) phases refer to instruc-
tion that can typically take place over the course of several
class periods, whereas King and Kitchener’s model spans
a developmental process that can take years.
Kronholm’s instructional model is centered on an ill-
 TABLE 2. Syntax of the Reflective Judgment-Development Model
(Kronholm 1996)
Phase Activity
1 Orientation and introduction to the issue. Pros and cons of the
problem explored.
2 Students take a stand. Focused questions are asked which en-
courage students to think about their epistemic perspective.
3 Students have the opportunity to articulate their epistemic per-
spectives in writing.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECH on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
4 (Optional Phase) Opportunities for students to share their epi-
stemic perspectives in pairs or small groups.
5 Class discussion based on the Plus One rule and disequilibrium.
6 Students are left with unanswered epistemological questions in-
volving the ill-structured problem. Some students may want
to continue exploring or investigating the issue indepen-
dently.
7 Retrospective reflection. Topics of discussion are revisited as
time allows.
structured problem that can be described and discussed in
the classroom. During the initial phases, the students are
presented with details of the problem and then encouraged
to express their opinions (Phases One and Two). Then the
students write about the problem, explicitly expressing
their perspectives on the knowledge used for making judg-
ments (Phases Three and Four). Phase Five of the model
takes the in-class discussion to a new level of cognitive
development. This step requires that the discussion leader
understands the student’s current level of development
(based partly on exercises in Phases Three and Four). Fi-
nally, the students are left with unanswered questions, i.e.,
no ‘‘right’’ answer is provided. Before describing how this
method was adopted for instruction in sustainable devel-
opment, it is important to briefly describe the elements of
sustainable development.
Sustainable Development
Sustainable development is a concept proposed as an
approach to engineering design that attempts to refocus
the point of view of engineers from a perceived bias on
short-term goals to long-term sustainability (Hart 1995;
Vesilind and Gunn 1998; Tengström 1999; Allenby 2000).
A definition was presented in 1984 by the United Nations
World Commission on Environment and Development
(1987) that stated sustainable development met ‘‘the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.’’
Several educators have recently called for the incorpo-
ration of sustainable development principles in the engi-
neering curriculum (Johnson and Korol 1995; Vanegas
1995; Duffell 1998). Johnson and Korol (1995) described
a set of principles for sustainable development:
• Anticipation and prevention
• Full cost accounting
• Informed decision making
• Living off the interest
• Quality of development over quantity
• Respect for nature and the rights of future generations
106 / JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE / JULY 2001
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2001.127:104-108.
The authors then present sustainable development top-
ics, which can be incorporated into the curriculum based
on these principles and designed for several of the sub-
disciplines in civil engineering, including structural, geo-
technical, transportation, construction, and environmental/
water resources. The need for informed decision making
is one of the main principles in sustainable development.
Good informed decision making requires the collection of
knowledge from many sources and an evaluation of the
validity of the knowledge before any decision making can
occur. Obviously, this requires engineers who can think
critically/reflectively.
At Colorado State University (CSU), a recent redesign
of the engineering curriculum (Grigg et al. 1996) provides
a set of design-oriented courses that allow for the easy
incorporation of sustainable development concepts. The
next section presents an example of how sustainable de-
velopment has been introduced to first-year civil engi-
neering students at CSU using an instructional approach
aimed at developing students’ critical thinking abilities.
Example Implementation
During the second semester of the first-year curriculum
at CSU, students work on semester-long team design proj-
ects. The course is taught using a weekly format of two,
one-hour long lecture meetings and one, two-hour labo-
ratory. In the lecture, various topics related to engineering
design are presented, while the laboratory time involves
interactive sessions using techniques ranging from lec-
tures to design team meetings. This course provides an
early opportunity to introduce students to the concepts and
principles of sustainable development. Early in the Spring
1999 semester, a series of lectures and laboratory discus-
sion sessions were presented on the principles of sustain-
able development discussed above, using an approach
geared to stimulate development of reflective judgment by
the students.
The exercise was started with a lecture on the principles
of sustainable development described by Johnson and Ko-
rol (1995). This material was followed by a presentation
on the approach for evaluating technological alternatives
against a set of criteria for sustainable development de-
scribed by Baetz and Korol (1995). These authors provide
seven criteria for evaluating alternatives: (1) integration/
synergy; (2) simplicity; (3) input/output characteristics;
(4) functionality; (5) adaptability; (6) diversity; and (7)
carrying capacity. Presentation of this material typically
takes two class meetings, because open discussion is pro-
moted through the use of simple examples that support
each of the seven evaluation concepts and provide a start-
ing point for further discussion. A third class meeting is
used to fully explore the landfill example from Baetz and
Korol (1995). By this time, the students should have de-
veloped a fairly good working knowledge about the con-
cepts of sustainable development.
After the students had an introduction to sustainable
development, the next phase introduced them to an engi-
 neering problem that challenges them to think more crit-
ically/reflectively. During the Spring 1999 semester, the
issue of regional transportation in Northern Colorado was
chosen for analysis. The region of Northern Colorado,
stretching from Denver north to Wyoming, was experi-
encing significant growth in population and jobs. The
transportation infrastructure, especially Interstate 25 that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECH on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
runs North and South was being taxes to its physical lim-
its. A study had been undertaken to evaluate possible al-
ternatives for relieving congestion along this section of
highway (NFRTAFS 1999). The options included more
highway lanes, HOV lanes, bus systems, and rail alter-
natives. To get the discussion started, the class was pre-
sented with the question of whether they thought there
was a problem with the current transportation infrastruc-
ture. This step corresponds to Phase One in Kronholm’s
procedure (1996).
Next, the students were encouraged to orally express
their views on the issue. Typically, the students presented
their opinions based on personal experience. This pro-
vided a good starting point for the students to understand
how their own perceptions (epistemic perspective) influ-
enced how they see a problem and evaluate an issue. The
students were challenged to defend their opinions and to
explicitly state the basis for their viewpoints. This corre-
sponds to Phase Two in Table 2.
In the subsequent class, factual data were presented
concerning the problems in the region, and the students
were given access to an Internet site where the informa-
tion was reported. At this web site, both collected data
and public opinions were presented. The students were
then required to: (1) read the materials on the web site;
(2) choose the design alternative they felt was the best
solution; and (3) defend their choice in writing.
In addition, they were required to evaluate the alterna-
tives using the sustainable development criteria from
Baetz and Korol (1995). These evaluation criteria required
the students to make judgments about issues filled with
uncertainty. It was impossible to guarantee a correct so-
lution under these circumstances. The key is to know why
a decision appears to be a good one and to be able to
explicitly defend the rationale for making that choice. This
step corresponds well with Phase Three from Kronholm’s
method.
In the written portions of the assignment, it is interest-
ing that the students exhibited the early stages of critical
thinking development described by Kronholm (1996) and
King and Kitchener (1994) where knowledge appears to
be certain and can be attributed to authorities. When mak-
ing the argument that there were significant transportation
problems, which needed to be solved, many students listed
‘‘facts’’ about the Northern Colorado region related to
these possible problems. This occurred even when the
facts actually were predictions of future trends based on
current trends.
In the first portion of the written assignment, most stu-
dents did not make any deeper analysis of the existence
JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE / JULY 2001 / 107
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2001.127:104-108.
of a problem than what was discussed in class. Some did
make this jump in the second part of their writing, when
they attempted to use the criteria for sustainable devel-
opment to make a judgment about the best proposed ap-
proach. In these sections, it was common for the students
to acknowledge that the basis for their decisions was not
well founded on facts but was more of a judgment call.
The tone of the writing tended to be less certain. The
students often acknowledged that their comments were
personal opinions. This type of thinking brings the stu-
dents closer to the middle of the critical/reflective thinking
spectrum discussed above.
The last step in the process was a follow-up class dis-
cussion in which the students stated their opinions on
what they perceived to be the best solution, which is con-
sistent with Phase Five. In this phase, the student is chal-
lenged to start thinking about problems at one stage be-
yond their current level of development (e.g., as defined
by King and Kitchener in Table 1). It is considered dif-
ficult to challenge a student to skip developmental stages,
therefore, it is important to push them only one step at a
time (Plus One rule). From the instructor’s point of view,
this is a critical and difficult stage. The written assign-
ments must be read carefully to determine where the stu-
dents appear along the critical thinking continuum. By
knowing the general level of critical thinking the students
are exhibiting, the instructor can then push the students to
the next level through pointed questions.
The final class discussion was quite lively, as there were
considerable differences in the opinions expressed by the
students. Each choice available as a solution received
votes from students. The students also found themselves
defending their choice to other students. They appeared
to be conscious that they were making judgments based
on uncertain knowledge of the situation. This led them to
be more open to other opinions expressed by their class-
mates. By the end of class, we reached Phase Six. We
were left with no perfect solution but had challenged our
own thinking approaches about the problem.
In summary, when students analyzed a growth related
transportation issue framed by sustainable development
concepts they were faced with the many uncertainties sur-
rounding such projects. The students learned that: (1)
some ‘‘facts’’ are more certain than others; (2) their own
biases were reflected in their judgments; and (3) other
solutions might be just as viable. This type of judgment
making and discussion requires good critical/reflective
thinking and is consistent with the types of problems
faced by practicing civil engineers.
Student reaction to this assignment was positive. The
students were most comfortable during the discussion pe-
riods when they could voice their ideas and test them
against the reaction of their classmates. To get the most
out of the discussions it is very important that the instruc-
tor maintain an environment that is positive to all student
ideas and encourages the students to speak freely.
As is often the case, the students found the writing as-
 pect to be more challenging. This was one of the first
times they were asked to write about an engineering topic
that required non-numerical analysis. Also, the students
had not been asked to do enough writing in engineering
classes, or elsewhere, for them to be very comfortable
with this type of assignment. These reactions highlight the
need to incorporate writing into the curriculum so that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECH on 07/29/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
students become more comfortable with these assign-
ments.
Although no formal assessment was done to gauge the
success of this one assignment, in a year-end question-
naire developed for an upcoming Accreditation Board for
Engineering Technology, Inc. visit, several students
pointed out that this course helped them to start ‘‘think-
ing’’ like engineers. This student reaction is indicative of
an overall positive experience.
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a method was described for presenting the
concepts of sustainable development of first-year civil en-
gineering students using pedagogical techniques related to
critical thinking development. Sustainable development is
an emerging area of environmental management that is
important to civil engineering students. The concept can
be associated with most design-related projects. The con-
cepts presented by Baetz and Karol (1995), and Johnson
and Karol (1995) have been successfully used to introduce
sustainable development during a first-year civil engi-
neering course focused on design projects.
In addition, development of students’ abilities to think
critically about engineering problems and design projects
is an important educational objective. Explicit methods for
developing students’ critical thinking skills have been
adapted for the first-year civil engineering curriculum.
This development is combined with the coverage of sus-
tainable development concepts in this approach. This
combination was chosen because the issue of sustainable
development exhibits many of the characteristics of ill-
structured problems that require critical thinking. For ex-
ample, some ill-structured problems are fraught with un-
certainties, rely upon criteria, and do not have obvious,
correct answers. Therefore, the combination of critical
thinking pedagogy and sustainable development concepts
provides an important contribution to the future education
of civil engineering students.
The literature on critical thinking development provides
some excellent pedagogical techniques for civil engineer-
ing educators. Implementation of some of these ap-
proaches require the educator to be well trained in critical
thinking concepts (Kronholm 1996). Engineering educa-
tors usually lack training in this area, which makes it dif-
ficult for more widespread inclusion of these approaches
to civil engineering education. In the work described in
this paper, the approach used the method presented by
Kronholm (1996). Based on her published results, it was
108 / JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE / JULY 2001
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2001.127:104-108.
taken as a given that the method works. Therefore, class-
room presentations and assignments designed using her
suggestions should be beneficial towards developing stu-
dents’ critical thinking skills.
One weakness of this project is the lack of measured
data related to student critical thinking development. It is
very difficult to measure changes related to a single as-
signment. On the other hand, students typically do show
measurable changes over the semester. If resources are
available for testing of students’ critical thinking, King
and Kitchener (1994) provide an excellent, verified testing
instrument for this purpose. This paper has presented a
beginning point to modify the curriculum to include more
explicit development of critical thinking skills. Other ap-
proaches need to be tried and discussed in the literature.
REFERENCES
Allenby, B. R. (2000). ‘‘Earth systems engineering: The world as human
artifact.’’ The Bridge 30(1), 5–13.
Baetz, B. W., and Korol, R. M. (1995). ‘‘Evaluating technical alterna-
tives on basis of sustainability.’’ J. Profl. Issues in Engrg. Educ. and
Pract., ASCE, 121(2), 102–107.
Damon, W. (1990). ‘‘Colleges must help foster a spirit of inquiry in the
nation’s schools.’’ Chronicles of Higher Educ., 36, A-48.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think, Heath, Lexington, Mass.
Duffell, R. (1998). ‘‘Toward the environment and sustainability ethic in
engineering education and practice.’’ J. Profl. Issues in Engrg. Educ.
and Pract., ASCE, 124(3), 78–90.
Grigg, N. S., Criswell, M. E., and Siller, T. J. (1996). ‘‘Integrated civil
engineering curriculum: Implementation and management issues.’’ J.
Profl. Issues in Engrg. Educ. and Pract., ASCE, 122(4), 151–155.
Hart, J. T. (1995). ‘‘Transforming technology: Creating a sustainable
future.’’ Fourth World Conf. on Engrg. Educ., Technology Based En-
gineering Education, Saint Paul, Minn.
Haworth, J. G., and Conrad, C. F. (1997). Emblems of quality in higher
education: Developing and sustaining high-quality programs, Allyn
and Bacon, Needham Heights, Mass.
Johnson, C. D., and Korol, R. M. (1995). ‘‘Incorporating sustainable
development principles in the civil engineering curriculum—An ur-
gent need.’’ Fourth World Conf. on Engrg. Educ., Technology Based
Engineering Education, Saint Paul, Minn.
King, P. M., and Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judg-
ment, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Kronholm, M. (1996). ‘‘The impact of developmental instruction on
reflective judgement.’’ Rev. of Higher Educ., 19(2), 199–225.
Lewis, T. (1997). Divided highways: Building the interstate highways,
transforming American life, Penguin Group, New York.
Lipman, M. (1988). ‘‘Critical thinking: What can it be?’’ Educ. Lead-
ership, 46(1), 38–43.
Northern Front Range Transportation Alternatives Feasibility Study
(NFRTAFS). (1999).
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco.
Tengström, E. (1999). Towards environmental sustainability?: A com-
parative study of Danish, Dutch and Swedish transport policies in a
European context, Aldershot, Ashgate.
Vanegas, J. A. (1995). ‘‘Engineering education for sustainable devel-
opment and technology.’’ Fourth World Conf. on Engrg. Educ., Saint
Paul, Minn.
Vesilind, P. A., and Gunn, A. S. (1998). ‘‘Sustainable Development and
the ASCE Code of Ethics.’’ J. Profl. Issues in Engrg. Educ. and
Pract., ASCE, 124(3), 72–74.
World Commission on Environmental Development. (1987). Our com-
mon future, Oxford, U.K.