Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Under China’s dual-carbon agenda and the accelerating green and digital transformation of the energy industry, higher education institutions face increasing pressure to prepare engineers for sustainable development. This article reports a longitudinal institutional case study of three energy-related undergraduate programs at Central South University, China. The core implementation period was 2018–2024; 2012 progression data were used as a descriptive pre-reform reference, and 2025 destination data provided a follow-up endpoint. The study reconstructs the author-developed model from curriculum documents, project and award records, graduate-destination statistics, employer-feedback summaries, textbook-adoption records, and dissemination records. It uses descriptive comparison and documentary triangulation; no control group or statistical significance tests were used. The Sustainability-Oriented Training Model for Energy Majors coordinates values and responsibility formation, science-education empowerment, and green and digitally enabled innovation through a task-driven full-cycle tutor system and four supporting mechanisms: value anchoring, knowledge iteration, a practice closed loop, and dynamic assessment. During the implementation period, the institutional records show higher postgraduate progression at the reported endpoints and favorable employment, employer-feedback, student-innovation, curriculum-renewal, and dissemination indicators. These outcomes are associated with the implementation period but do not establish causal effects or directly measure sustainability competencies. The case offers a context-dependent framework for sustainability-oriented reform in engineering education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
王洪才 et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: