A Look-Back to Jump Forward: From an Ancient Innovation Culture to the Exploration of Emerging Pedagogies in Engineering

  • Francisca Barrios
  • Melanie Cornejo
  • Brian O’Hara
  • Francisco Tarazona-Vasquez
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 715)


From its inception, Universidad de Ingeniería y Tecnología (UTEC) has had the vision of causing a disruptive change in society by educating a new generation of holistic engineers. The university has recently embarked on a radical transformation of its educational model, in order to deliver its promise. A flexible curriculum provides students not only with a strong STHEAM backbone imparted in a student-centered, active-learning format, but also exposes them to real engineering challenges and promotes the acquisition of professional skills from the onset. For this radical change to be implemented successfully, UTEC has decided to design and launch a Laboratory for Educational Innovation, called Moray. Moray has been conceived as an open platform, consisting of a common space and a set of protocols through which faculty, students, staff, and experts from top universities worldwide can work interdisciplinarily and collaboratively, towards the enhancement of learning experiences in higher education.


Educational innovation Engineering education Emerging pedagogies Student-centered teaching T-shaped engineers 


  1. 1.
    Besterfield-Sacre, M., Cox, M.F., Borrego, M., Beddoes, K., Zhu, J.: J. Eng. Educ. 103, 193 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Felder, R.M.: 34, 238 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ambrose, S.A., Lovett, M., Bridges, M.W., Dipietro, M., Norman, M.K.: How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching, San Francisco, CA (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Felder, R.M., Woods, D.R., Stice, J.E., Rugarcia, A.: Chem. Eng. Educ. 34, 26 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Claro, M.: La Incorporación de Tecnologías Digitales En Educación. Modelos de Identificación de Buenas Prácticas, Santiago de Chile (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khazaal, H.F.: J. Coll. Teach. Learn. 12, 1 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Correa, J.M., De Pablos, J.: Rev. Psicodidáctica 14, 133 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Santiago Campión, R., Navaridas Nalda, F., Andía Celaya, L.A.: Estud. Sobre Educ. 30, 145 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith, M.K., Jones, F.H.M., Gilbert, S.L., Wieman, C.E.: CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 12, 618 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    King, A.: Coll. Teach. 41, 30 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crawley, E.F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D.R., Edström, K.: Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach. Springer, Cham (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Graham, R.: Template for Evaluating Teaching Achievement, London (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisca Barrios
    • 1
  • Melanie Cornejo
    • 1
  • Brian O’Hara
    • 1
  • Francisco Tarazona-Vasquez
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidad de Ingenieria y TecnologiaLimaPeru

Personalised recommendations