Advertisement

Technological innovations and practices in engineering education: a review

  • Marcela Hernandez-de-Menendez
  • Ruben Morales-MenendezEmail author
Original Paper
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

Nowadays, universities are teaching students whose main distinctive characteristic is the strong relationship they have with information and communication technology (ICT). They are the millennial generation who have a different learning style and who are most effective when doing multisensory activities. Higher education institutions face a big challenge in finding ways to improve the learning experience and academic performance of these and future students. Research has shown that ICTs used for educational purposes can help in meeting this challenge. In this work, a review of the available ICTs that can be applied in the educational field is undertaken. Additionally, selected universities from the QS World University Rankings by Engineering and Technology Subject 2018 are analyzed. The aim is to review the state of the art technology employed by them and to summarize the innovative technological tools, trends and teaching practices of these organizations for successful engineering education. This research work can be seen as a guide to proven and valuable technologies and educational practices useful to improve the teaching–learning processes in engineering education.

Keywords

Educational innovation Educational technologies Engineering education Innovative teaching University practices 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial and the technical support of Writing Lab, TecLabs, Tecnologico de Monterrey in the production of this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Eh Phon, D.N., Ali, M.B., Halim, N.D.A.: Collaborative augmented reality in education: a review. Int. Conf. Teach. Learn. Comput. Eng. LATICE 2014, 78–83 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., Mitchell, R.: Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 18(1), 7–22 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Noguera, I.: how millennials are changing the way of learning: the state of the art of ICT integration in education. RIED. Rev. Iberoaméricana Educ. Distancia 18(1), 45–65 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tecnologico de Monterrey.: Aprendizaje Híbrido: ¿El Futuro de la Educación Superior? Observatorio de Innovación Educativa. https://observatorio.itesm.mx/ (2017). Accessed 17 Oct 2017
  5. 5.
    Luévano, E., López, E.: Uso De Dispositivo Móvil de Telepresencia en la Educación a Nivel Universitario. In Congreso Iberoamericano de Ciencia, Tecnología, Innovación y Educación, pp. 1–12 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    González-Mendívil, E., Salinas, N., Reyes, M., Vázquez, E., González, A., Toro, J., López, R., Martínez, M., Ramírez, H., Garza, L., Pantoja, G., Morales, S., Quintero, E., Ocampo, H., Silva, G., Hernández, C., Sánchez, X.: Telepresencia Holográfica en el Tecnologico De Monterrey. Repos. Inst. del Tecnologico Monterrey (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Orta, P., Urbina, P., Ahuett, H., Hernández, M., Morales-Menendez, R.: Social collaboration software for virtual teams—case studies. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 12(1), 15–24 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Seemiller, C., Grace, M.: Generation Z Goes to College. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fagan, N.: In Higher Education, It Change is What you Make of it. EdTech.//edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2017/07/higher-education-it-change-what-you-make-it (2017). Accessed 29 Sept 2017Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vander, T. The Future of Skills: Employment in 2030. Getting Smart. www.gettingsmart.com/2017/09/the-future-of-skills-employment-in-2030/ (2017). Accessed 04 Oct 2017
  11. 11.
    Conner, M. Apple Co-founder Steve Wozniak Forms ‘Woz U’ To Reprogram Tech Education, Address Skills Gap. Business Wire. www.businesswire.com/news/home/20171013005008/en/Apple-Co-Founder-Steve-Wozniak-Forms-Woz-Reprogram (2017). Accessed: 17 Oct 2017
  12. 12.
    Johnson, L., Adams, S., Cummins, M.: NMC Horizon Report: 2012 Higher Education Edition, Austin, Texas (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Young, J.: Smartphones on Campus: The Search for ‘Killer’ Apps. The Chronicles of Higher Education. www.chronicle.com/article/Smartphones-on-Campus-the/127397/ (2011). Accessed 29 Sept 2017
  14. 14.
    Sharples, M., De Roock, R., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Koh, E., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Looi, C.-K., Mcandrew, P., Rienties, B., Weller, M., Wong, L.H.: Innovating Pedagogy 2016: Open University Innovation Report 5 (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bauer, K.: La Pedagogía Abierta es Clave para Mejorar las Prácticas Docentes. Observatorio de Innovación Educativa.//observatorio.itesm.mx (2017). Accessed 17 Oct 2017Google Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., Beauchamp, G.: Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 24(1), 61–73 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., Martín, S.: Technology Outlook for STEM + Education 2013–2018: An NMC Horizon Project Sector Analysis, Austin, TX (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tecnológico de Monterrey.: Modelo Educativo Tec 21. https://observatory.itesm.mx/tec21 (n.d.). Accessed 28 Nov 2018
  20. 20.
    Zavala-Enriquez, G.: Personal Communication. Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tecnológico de Monterrey.: Reporte de Avance de Innovación Educativa 2016. NOVUS//novus.itesm.mx/antes/publicaciones/ (2016). Accessed 13 Oct 2017Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hernández-de-Menéndez, M., Vallejo Guevara, A., MoralesMenendez, R.: Virtual reality laboratories: a review of experiences. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. (2019) (in press)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mejía, M., Valera, A.: Semestre i, El Aprendizaje Basado en Retos del Modelo de TEC21 en Acción. Noticias del Tecnológico de Monterrey (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tecnológico de Monterrey.: Charlas de Innovación. Modelo Educativo Tec21 y Semana i. YouTube, México (2016)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Giesinger, C., Ananthanarayanan, V.: NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition, Austin, TX (2017)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    U.S. Department of Education.: Re-imagining the Role of Technology in Education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update. No. January, pp. 1–107 (2017)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Merchant, Z., Goetz, E.T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., Davis, T.J.: Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: a meta-analysis. Comput. Educ. 70, 29–40 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    In Touch With Molecules.: About in Touch with Molecules. https://molecules.wested.org/about/index.php. Accessed 21 May 2018
  29. 29.
    Gallego, M.D., Bueno, S., Noyes, J.: Second life adoption in education: a motivational model based on uses and gratifications theory. In: Computers and Education, vol. 100, pp. 81–93. Elsevier Ltd (2016)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Snelson, C., Wertz, C., Onstott, K., Bader, J.: Using world of warcraft to teach research methods in online doctoral education: a student-instructor duoethnography. Qual. Rep. 22(5), 1439–1456 (2017)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Google.: What is Expeditions? Expeditions Help. https://support.google.com/edu/expeditions/answer/6335093?hl=en. Accessed 21 May 2018
  32. 32.
    Minecraft.: What is Minecraft Education Edition? https://education.minecraft.net/how-it-works/what-is-minecraft/. Accessed 24 May 2018
  33. 33.
    SimSE.: Details. https://www.ics.uci.edu/~emilyo/SimSE/details.html. Accessed 24 May 2018
  34. 34.
    Magnussen, R., Hansen, S., Planke, T., Sherson, J.: Games as a platform for student participation in authentic scientific research. Electron. J. e-Learn. 12(3), 259–270 (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Grajek, S., Grama, J.: Higher Education’s 2018 Trend Watch and Top 10 Strategic Technologies. Educause, Louisville (2018). https://library.educause.edu/resources/2018/2/higher-educations-2018-trend-watch-and-top-10-strategic-technologies. Accessed 15 Sept 2018
  36. 36.
    Jarvin, L.: Edutainment, games, and the future of education in a digital world. In: Grigorenko, E.L. (ed.) The Global Context for New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, vol. 147, pp. 33–40. Wiley, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., Angelova, G.: Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study. Educ. Technol. Soc. 18(3), 75–88 (2015)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    OECD.: Innovating Education and Educating for Innovation: The Power of Digital Technologies and Skills, Paris (2016)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mulgan, G., Joshi, R.: Clicks and Mortarboards: How Can Higher Education Make the Most of Digital Technology? London (2016). https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/clicks-and-mortarboards-how-can-higher-education-make-the-most-of-digital-technology/. Accessed Aug 2018
  40. 40.
    Colorado Technical University.: IntellipathTM: Be the Boss of Your Learning Experience. CTU Learning Approach. https://www.coloradotech.edu/online-degree-programs/intellipath. Accessed 21 May 2017
  41. 41.
    Johnson, C.: Adaptive Learning Platforms: Creating a Path for Success. EDUCASE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2016/3/adaptive-learning-platforms-creating-a-path-for-success (2016). Accessed 30 May 2018
  42. 42.
    Aidinlou, N.A., Alemi, M., Farjami, F., Makhdoumi, M.: Applications of robot assisted language learning (RALL) in language learning and teaching. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2(3–1), 12–20 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Alelo.: RALL-E Project. https://www.alelo.com/rall-e-project/. Accessed 21 May 2018
  44. 44.
    LEGO System Inc.: Product Details. https://shop.lego.com/en-CA/LEGO-MINDSTORMS-NXT-2-0-8547. Accessed 25 May 2018
  45. 45.
    Gross, S., Kim, M., Schlosser, J., Lluch, D., Schneider, D.: Fostering computational thinking in engineering education. IEEE Glob.Eng. Educ. Conf. (EDUCON) 4(April), 450–459 (2014)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Thymio.: How About Taming a Robot? https://www.thymio.org/en:thymio. Accessed 25 May 2018
  47. 47.
    Mondada, F., Bonani, M., Riedo, F., Briod, M., Pereyre, L., Rétornaz, P., Magnenat, S.: Bringing robotics to formal education. The Thymio Open-Source Hardware Robot. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 24, 77–85 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    AgentSheets.: Mr. Vetro: Collective Simulations in the Classroom for Teaching Health Science. http://www.agentsheets.com/education/mr-vetro/index.html. Accessed 23 May 2018
  49. 49.
    Aurova Group.: What is Robolab? http://disclab.ua.es/robolab/indexi.html. Accessed 24 May 2018
  50. 50.
    Potkonjak, V., Gardner, M., Callaghan, V., Mattila, P., Guetl, C., Petrović, V.M., Jovanović, K.: Virtual laboratories for education in science, technology, and engineering: a review. Comput. Educ. 95, 309–327 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology.: OLabs. http://www.olabs.edu.in/. Accessed 25 May 2018
  52. 52.
    Ioannidou, A., Repenning, A., Webb, D., Keyser, D., Luhn, L., Daetwyler, C.: Mr. Vetro: a collective simulation for teaching health science. Int. J. Comput. Collab. Learn. 5(2), 141–166 (2010)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lynch, T., Ghergulescu, I.: Review of virtual labs as the emerging technologies for teaching stem subjects. In: INTED2017.11Th International Technology, Education and Development Conference, pp. 6082–6091 (2017)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ferreira, M.J., Moreira, F., Pereira, C. S., Durão, N.: The role of mobile technologies in the teaching/learning process improvement in Portugal. In: Iceri2015, pp. 4600–4610 (2015)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cambridge Assessment International Education. Digital Technologies in the Classroom. (2017). https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/271191-digital-technologies-in-the-classroom.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2018
  56. 56.
    Ahalt, S., Fecho, K.: Ten Emerging Technologies for Higher Education. RENCI, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (2015). https://renci.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/EmergingTechforHigherEd.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2018
  57. 57.
    Sung, Y.T., Chang, K.E., Liu, T.C.: The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: a meta-analysis and research synthesis. Comput. Educ. 94, 252–275 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Balakrishnan, V.: Using social networks to enhance teaching and learning experiences in higher learning institutions. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 51(6), 595–606 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Klimova, B., Poulova, P.: A social networks in education. In 12th International Conf on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age, pp. 240–246 (2015)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Akbari, E., Naderi, A., Simons, R.-J., Pilot, A.: Student engagement and foreign language learning through online social networks. Asian-Pacific J. Second. Foreign Lang. Educ. 1, 4 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Mathematica Policy Research.: Is your Educational Technology Moving the Needle in the Classroom? Ed Tech Rapid Cycle Evaluation Coach. https://edtechrce.org/. Accessed 21 May 2018
  62. 62.
    TED Conferences.: How do I Create a Lesson Page on TED-Ed? https://support.ed.ted.com/customer/en/portal/articles/2490572-how-do-i-create-a-lesson-page-on-ted-ed (2016). Accessed 24 May 2018
  63. 63.
    HT2Labs. Curatr. Social Learning Platform.: Solutions. https://www.ht2labs.com/curatr/. Accessed 24 May 2018
  64. 64.
    Luna, J.M., Castro, C., Romero, C.: MDM tool: a data mining framework integrated into moodle. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 25(1), 90–102 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Douglas, R.: TED-Ed web-based blended learning to support teaching: an action research project. In 2nd International Conference on Higher Education Advances, pp. 278–286 (2016)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Page, T.: Embedded systems for the internet of things in product design education. I-manager’s J. Embed. Syst. 4, 1 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Simic, K., Despotovic-Zrakic, M., Ðuric, I., Milic, A., Bogdanovic, N.A.: Model of smart environment for e-learning based on crowdsourcing. J. Univ. Excell. 4(1), A1–A10 (2015)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Gul, S., Asif, M., Ahmad, S., Yasir, M., Majid, M., Malik, M.S.A.: A survey on role of internet of things in education. IJCSNS Int. J. Comput. Sci. Netw. Secur. 17(5), 159–165 (2017)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Buckingham, S., Knight, S., McNamara, D., Allen, L., Bektik, D., Crossley, S.: Critical perspectives on writing analytics. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge-LAK’16, pp. 481–483 (2016)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Coh-Metrics.: Coh-Metrix Version 3.0 Indices. http://www.cohmetrix.com/. Accessed 29 May 2018
  71. 71.
    LIWC.: How it Works. http://liwc.wpengine.com/how-it-works/. Accessed 29 May 2018
  72. 72.
    Spector, M.: The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. SAGE Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., Mirriahi, N., Blaine, E., Gašević, D., Siemens, G., Dawson, S.: Understand Students’ Self-reflections Through Learning Analytics. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge-LAK’18, pp. 389–398 (2018)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    KDIS Lab.: MDM Tool. http://www.uco.es/kdis/research/software/. Accessed 29 May 2018
  75. 75.
    Gašević, D., Dawson, S., Siemens, G.: Let’s not forget: learning analytics are about learning. TechTrends 59(1), 64–71 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    LOCO-Analyst.: What is LOCO-Analyst? http://jelenajovanovic.net/LOCO-Analyst/. Accessed 29 May 2018
  77. 77.
    Turnitin.: GradeMark.//guides.turnitin.com/01_Manuals_and_Guides/Instructor_Guides/Turnitin_Classic_(Deprecated)/25_GradeMark. Accessed 22 May 2018Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Intelligent Assessment Technologies.: ExamOnline. http://www.intelligentassessment.com/examonline/. Accessed 22 May 2018
  79. 79.
    Loughborough University.: What is WebPA? http://webpaproject.lboro.ac.uk/welcome/what-is-webpa/. Accessed 22 May 2018
  80. 80.
    Petrović, J., Pale, P., Jeren, B.: Online formative assessments in a digital signal processing course: effects of feedback type and content difficulty on students learning achievements. Educ. Inf. Technol. 22(6), 3047–3061 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Quacquarelli Symonds.: QS World University Ranking by Subject 2018. https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2018/engineering-technology. Accessed 14 Nov 2018
  82. 82.
    MIT.: About iLabs.//ilab.mit.edu/iLabServiceBroker/. Accessed 02 Oct 2017Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Corter, J.E., Esche, S.K., Chassapis, C., Ma, J., Nickerson, J.V.: Process and learning outcomes from remotely-operated, simulated, and hands-on student laboratories. Comput. Educ. 57(3), 2054–2067 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Bolkan, J.: Carnegie Mellon Engineering Prof Teaches Materials Science with Minecraft. Campus Technology.//campustechnology.com/articles/2017/08/02/carnegie-mellon-engineering-prof-teaches-materials-science-with-minecraft.aspx?admgarea = news (2017). Accessed 27 Sept 2017Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Vlachopoulos, D., Makri, A.: The effect of games and simulations on higher education: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 14(1), 22 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    University of Oxford-Medical Science Division.: Learning, Teaching & Assessment.//www.medsci.ox.ac.uk/support-services/teams/learning-technologies/learning-teaching-and-asssessment. Accessed 28 Sept 2017
  87. 87.
    Ellaway, R.: Activity designs for professional learning. In: Beetham, H., Sharpe, R. (eds.) Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age, 2nd edn, p. 196. Routledge, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    University College London.: Immersive Virtual Environments laboratory.//vr.cs.ucl.ac.uk/. Accessed 28 Sept 2017Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Dünser, A., Steinbügl, K., Kaufmann, H., Glück, J.: Virtual and augmented reality as spatial ability training tools. Proc. CHINZ 2006, 25–132 (2006)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Stanford University.: From CourseWork to Canvas: Stanford Embarks on a Major Transition in Learning Platforms. Stanford News.//vptl.stanford.edu/news/coursework-canvas-stanford-embarks-major-transition-learning-platforms (2015). Accessed 05 Oct 2017Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Boggs, S., Shore, M., Shore, J.: Using e-Learning platforms for mastery learning in developmental mathematics courses. Math. Comput. Educ. 38, 213–220 (2004)Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Havergal, C.: Let Students Take Phones Into Exams, Says Harvard Professor. Times Higher Education.//www.timeshighereducation.com/news/let-students-take-phones-exams-says-harvard-professor#survey-answer (2017). Accessed 27 Sept 2017
  93. 93.
    Novak, E., Razzouk, R., Johnson, T.E.: The educational use of social annotation tools in higher education: a literature review. Internet High. Educ. 15(1), 39–49 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Harvard University.: Classroom Participation and Polling. Academic Technology for the Faculty of Arts and Science.//atg.fas.harvard.edu/technology-categories/classroom-participation-and-polling. Accessed 27 Sept 2017Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Nelson, C., Hartling, L., Campbell, S., Oswald, A.E.: The effects of audience response systems on learning outcomes in health professions education. A BEME systematic review: BEME guide no. 21. Med. Teach. 34(6), e386–e405 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Meltzer, A.: M-Write Expands to Include Computer Analysis in Grading Student Essays. The Michigan Daily.//www.michigandaily.com/section/academics/university-introduce-automated-writing-analysis-fall-classes (2017). Accessed 05 Oct 2017
  97. 97.
    University of Michigan.: M-Write II,” Third Century Initiative.//thirdcentury.umich.edu/m-write-ii/. Accessed 27 Sept 2017Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    UC Berkeley.: Gradescope. Berkeley Educational Technology Services.//www.ets.berkeley.edu/services-facilities/gradescope. Accessed 27 Sept 2017
  99. 99.
    Gratton, D.G., Kwon, S.R., Blanchette, D.R., Aquilino, S.A.: Performance of two different digital evaluation systems used for assessing pre-clinical dental students’ prosthodontic technical skills. Eur. J. Dent. Educ. 1, 1–9 (2016)Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Cornell University.: e-Portfolios@Cornell.//eportfoliohelp.cit.cornell.edu/. Accessed 28 Sept 2017Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Takle, E., Sorensen, E., Taber, M., Fils, D.: Virtual portfolios lessons learned from four years of implementation. In: Watson, D., Andersen, J. (eds.) Networking the Learner, pp. 135–142. Springer, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Maderer, J.: Jill Watson, Round Three. Georgia Tech News Center.//www.news.gatech.edu/2017/01/09/jill-watson-round-three (2017). Accessed 28 Sept 2017
  103. 103.
    Tegos, S., Demetriadis, S.: Conversational agents improve peer learning through building on prior knowledge. Educ. Technol. Soc. 20(1), 99–111 (2017)Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Columbia University.: Wiki-spaces. Center for Teaching and Learning.//ctl.columbia.edu/support/educational-technologies/wikispaces/. Accessed 05 Dec 2017Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Palomo-Duarte, M., Dodero, J.M., García-Domínguez, A., Neira-Ayuso, P., Sales-Montes, N., Medina-Bulo, I., Palomo-Lozano, F., Castro-Cabrera, C., Rodríguez-Posada, E.J., Balderas, A.: Scalability of assessments of wiki-based learning experiences in higher education. Comput. Hum. Behav. 31(1), 638–650 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    University of Edingburgh.: Virtual Worlds for Education. Information Services.//www.ed.ac.uk/information-services/learning-technology/communication/virtual (2016). Accessed 05 Dec 2017
  107. 107.
    Pellas, N.: the influence of computer self-efficacy, metacognitive self-regulation and self-esteem on student engagement in online learning programs: evidence from the virtual world of second life. Comput. Hum. Behav. 35, 157–170 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    King, F., Goodson, L., Rohani, F.: Higher Order Thinking Skills.//www.cala.fsu.edu/files/higher_order_thinking_skills.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2018
  109. 109.
    Hernandez-de-Menendez, M., Morales-Menendez, R.: Current trends in competency based education. World J. Eng. Technol. 4, 193–199 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Hernandez-de-Menendez, M., Morales-Menendez, R.: Competency based education—current global practices. In: 3rd International Conference on Higher Education Advances, pp. 1156–1164 (2017)Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Hernandez-de-Menendez, M., Morales-Menendez, R., Pedro, O.: Virtual teams in engineering—global practices. In: ASEE International Forum (2017)Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Redding, S.: Competencies and personalized learning. In: Murphy, M., Redding, S., Twyman, J. (eds.) Handbook on Personalized Learning for States, Districts, and Schools, pp. 3–18. Temple University, Center on Innovations in Learning, Philadelphia, PA (2016)Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Jones, G.: Web 2.0 practices for peer assessment processes: exploring the synergies and tensions. In: Ciussi, M., Gerbers, E. (eds.) Leading Issues in E-learning Research for Researchers, Teachers and Students, p. 117. Academic Publishing International Limited, London (2012)Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Ferguson, C.W.: A Comparison of Instructional Methods for Improving the Spatial-Visualization Ability of Freshman Technology Seminar Students. Western Carolina University, Ann Arbor (2008)Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Schwering, A., Münzer, S., Bartoschek, T., Li, R.: Gamification for spatial literacy: the use of a desktop application to foster map-based competencies. In: AGILE Workshop Geogames (2014)Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Sun, R., Merrill, E., Peterson, T.: From implicit skills to explicit knowledge: a bottom-up model of skill learning. Cogn. Sci. 25(2), 203–244 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M. Developing conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics. Oxford handbook of numerical cognition, pp. 1102–1118 (2014)Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Duggins, S.D.: The Development of Sense of Agency. Georgia State University, Atlanda (2011)Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Kusano, S., Wright, M., Conger, A.: Development and Assessment of Self-Agency and the Ability to Innovate and Take Risk, Ann Arbor (2016)Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Gutiérrez, A., Tyner, K.: Media education, media literacy and digital competence. Comunicar 19(38), 31–39 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Lai, K.-W.: Digital technology and the culture of teaching and learning in higher education. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 27(8), 1263–1275 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Ewalt, D.: Reuters Top 100: The World’s Most Innovative Universities—2017. Reuters. www.reuters.com/article/us-amers-reuters-ranking-innovative-univ/reuters-top-100-the-worlds-most-innovative-universities-2017-idUSKCN1C209R (2017). Accessed 13 Oct 2017

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcela Hernandez-de-Menendez
    • 1
  • Ruben Morales-Menendez
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Escuela de Ingeniería y CienciasTecnologico de MonterreyMonterreyMexico

Personalised recommendations