Survival Engineering and the Game of Knowledge: A Ludic Form of Teaching and Learning in Engineering
Within the engineering pedagogy, it must be remembered that students learn in many different ways: seeing, hearing, thinking, acting, drawing analogies, and building mathematical models in the area of science and technology. This means that the student participates actively, appropriates it, and makes the experience a meaningful learning, transforming the process of teaching and learning into a dynamic interaction between the student and the teacher and/or between students, both inside and outside the classroom. This study provides an overview of the development of hard and soft skills in project-based curriculum planning in the context of engineering education, based on a ludic and motivational approach to teaching Geology—called the Student Contest of Survival Engineering (SCSE)—to students in the third year of a Civil Engineering career course. The purpose of this active methodology was to encourage students to develop both soft and hard skills, which were evaluated through practices conducted in the field with theoretical and technical activities. From the results obtained, it was concluded that the students had good expectations and felt fully motivated with respect to the skills they achieved. Similarly, it was evident that students had good intellectual capital but weak nontechnical skills and cooperative skills, impacting their ability to achieve the objectives of the course. This reinforces the need to implement both theoretical background knowledge and a basic science course as the common core of engineering.
KeywordsSoft and hard skills Teaching engineering Ludic teaching and learning
The author wishes to acknowledge the students in the second semester of the Civil Engineering career course in 2013 at the Regional Center of Veraguas, Universidad Tecnológica de Panamá, who participated in this study; the staff of the National System of Civil Protection (SINAPROC); and the National Environmental Authority (ANAM), Veraguas, for their support during this experience.
- Anderson, L. S., & Gilbride, K. A. (2003). Pre-university outreach: Encouraging students to consider engineering careers. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 7(1), 87–93.Google Scholar
- Crawler E.F. (2001). The CDIO Syllabus: A statement of goals for undergraduate engineering education (Technical Report). Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 82 p.Google Scholar
- Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.Google Scholar
- Johnston, S. M. (2005). Open educational resources serve the world. Educause Quarterly, 3, 15–18. 2005.Google Scholar
- Patil, A. S. (2005). Global engineering criteria for the development of the global engineering profession. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 4(1), 49–52. 2005.Google Scholar
- Reidsema C. & Goldsmith R. (n.d.). Design based curriculum reform within engineering education (Final Report 2011 Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching).Google Scholar
- Roush D.C. (1983). Estrategias para una efectiva enseñanza universitaria. Programa de Intercambio Educativo Fullbright del Servicio Informativo Cultural de los Estados Unidos, 165 p.Google Scholar
- Tejedor A. (1997). Método Keller en Mecánica Básica I de Tecnología de Mecánica Industrial. In Proceedings of the 14th Brazilian Congress of Mechanical Engineering, Baurú, Sao Paulo, Brazil, pp. 60–65.Google Scholar