Survival Engineering and the Game of Knowledge: A Ludic Form of Teaching and Learning in Engineering

  • Alexis Tejedor De León


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.


Soft 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.


  1. Ahn, B., Cox, M. F., & London, J. (2014). Creating an instrument to measure leadership, change, and synthesis in engineering undergraduates. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(1), 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Berger, J. G., Boles, K. C., & Troen, V. (2005). Teacher research and school change: Paradoxes, problems and possibilities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarke, A., & Jarvis-Selinger, S. (2005). What the teaching perspectives of cooperating teachers tell us about their advisory practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Craton, P., & Carusetta, E. (2002). Reflecting on teaching: The influence of context. The International Journal for Academic Development, 7(2), 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.Google Scholar
  8. Goel, S. (2006). Competency focused engineering education with reference to IT related disciplines: Is the Indian system ready for transformation? Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnston, S. M. (2005). Open educational resources serve the world. Educause Quarterly, 3, 15–18. 2005.Google Scholar
  10. Leow, C., Marcus, S., Zanutto, E., & Boruch, R. (2004). Effects of advanced course-taking on math and science achievement: Addressing selection bias using propenstity scores. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(4), 461–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mesa, J. M., Álvarez, J. V., Villanueva, J. M., & De Cos, F. J. (2008). Actualización de métodos de enseñanza-aprendizaje en asignaturas de dirección de proyectos de ingeniería. Formación Universitaria., 1(4), 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Palmer, S. (2001). Engineering flexible reaching and learning in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 26(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Powell, A., Bagilhole, B., & Dainty, A. (2009). How women engineers do and undo gender: Consequences for gender equality. Gender, Work and Organization, 16(4), 411–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Shuman, L. J., Besterfield-Sacre, M., & McGourty, J. (2005). The ABET “professional skills”—can they be assessed? Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Walkington, J., Christensen, H. P., & Kock, H. (2001). Developing critical reflection as a part of teaching and teaching practice. European Journal of Engineering Education, 26(4), 343–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Warn, J., & Tranter, P. (2001). Measuring quality in higher education: A competency approach. Quality in Higher Education, 7(3), 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centro Regional de Veraguas – Universidad Tecnológica de PanamáSantiago de VeraguasPanama

Personalised recommendations