Engineering Education Using Professional Activity Simulators

  • Dorin IsocEmail author
  • Teodora Surubaru
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 916)


The Engineering School is a set of broad-based activities designed to build an individual who, beyond knowledge, is also endowed with a particular way of thinking. In conventional school, knowledge and some technical skills take precedence. The way of thinking is build in a wider context, with well connected and justified activities, correctly connected to reality. A professional framework similar to the real-world professional environment, called the “engineering office" is introduced. In this framework, the technical simulator expands with a professional activities simulator. One describes the components of the professional activities simulator and their role in engineering thinking development. The major advantage of such a simulator is that it naturally integrates skills and knowledge essential through their frequency of use. So, the professional activity simulator put the student closer to structurally justifying details that the school dims and simplifies, sometimes not allowed for, for reasons of approach and methodology.


Simulator Regulation Standard Training Engineering Information Active learning 


  1. 1.
    Baker, A., Navarro, E., Van Der Hoek, A.: An experimental card game for teaching software engineering processes. J. Syst. Softw. 75(2), 3–16 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cagiltay, N.: Teaching software engineering by means of computer-game development: challenges and opportunities. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 38(3), 405–415 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dozortsev, V.: Development of computer-based training simulator for industrial operators: main participants, their roles and communications. Autom. Remote Control 71(7), 1476–1480 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dozortsev, V.: Methods for computer-based operator training as a key element of training systems (present-day trends). Autom. Remote Control 74(7), 1191–1200 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ebner, M., Holzinger, A.: Successful implementation of user-centered game based learning in higher education: an example from civil engineering. Comput. Educ. 49(3), 873–890 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Isoc, D.: Training using professional simulators in engineering education: a solution and a case study. In: M. Auer, D. Guralnick, I. Simonics (eds.) Teaching and Learning in a Digital World: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning, pp. 208–218. Springer (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Isoc, D., Isoc, T.: Practice of peer-review and the innovative engineering school. In: 2015 9th International Symposium on Advanced Topics in Electrical Engineering (ATEE), 7 May 2015, pp. 111–116. Bucharest (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim, B., Park, H., Baek, Y.: Not just fun, but serious strategies: Using meta-cognitive strategies in game-based learning. Comput. Educ. 52(4), 800–810 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rogalski, T., Tomczyk, A., Kopecki, G.: Flight simulator as a tool for flight control system synthesis and handling qualities research. Solid State Phenom. 147, 231–236 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scalese, R., Issenberg, S.: Effective use of simulations for the teaching and acquisition of veterinary professional and clinical skills. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 32(4), 461–677 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technical University of Cluj-NapocaCluj-NapocaRomania
  2. 2.Group for Reform and University AlternativeCluj-NapocaRomania

Personalised recommendations