Developing a Model for Innovation– The Integration of Project-based Learning into an Experiential Training Program in Undergraduate Engineering Education
Active learning implies that more responsibility is placed on students for their own learning than in the traditional lecture-based approach. Students, companies and society in general demand new engineering education. Active learning, critical thinking and design thinking are elements of a type of education which leads to effective results. Universidad de Ingeniería y Tecnología (UTEC) in Peru offers the “Experiential Training in Engineering” program, in which each student conducts engineering projects from the early stages until the end of their studies. This paper introduces an innovation model to improve the way in which we teach engineering education.
2. Alkandari, N. (2014). Engineering Education and Students' Challenges: Strategies Toward Enhancing the Educational Environment in Engineering Colleges, College Student Journal, 2, 221-230.
3. Basterfield- Sacre, M., Cox, M., Borrego, M., Beddoes, K. &Zhu, J. (2008). Changing Engineering Education: View of U.S. Faculty, Chairs and Deans, Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 193-219.
4. Jameson, L. & Lohmann, J. (2009). Creating a Cultures for Scholarship and Systematic Innovation in Engineering Education: Ensuring U.S. engineering has the right people with the right talent for a global society, Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.
5. B. H. Alberto and M. R. Pablo, "Closing the gap between research and practice in engineering education: UTEC, a Peruvian university," 2015 IEEE 3rd International Conference on MOOCs, Innovation and Technology in Education (MITE), Amritsar, 2015, pp. 296-300.
6. Aguilar, M. A., & Cepeda, B. (2005). Pisa para docentes. La evaluación como oportunidad de aprendizaje. México DF, INEE.
7. Khazaal, H. (2015). Problem Solving Method Based on E-Learning System for Engineering Education, Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 12(1), 1- 12.
8. Ayud, M. & Smith, L. (2015). An Integrative Approach to Curriculum Development in Higher Education in the USA: A Theoretical Framework, International Education Studies, 8(3), 66- 76
9. Metz, S. (2015). Project- based science learning. The Science Teacher, 82(1), 6.
10. Pence, K. & Rowe, C. (2012). Enhancing Engineering Education through Engineering Management, Journal of STEM Education, 13(3), 46-51.
11. Tamim, S. and Grant, M. 2013. "Definitions and Uses: Case Study of Teachers Implementing Project-based Learning." Interdisciplinary Journal Of Problem-Based Learning 7, no. 2: 71-101.
12. Matusocivh, H., Paretii, M., Mc Nair, L., & Hixson, C. (2014). Faculty Motivation: A Gateway to Transforming Engineering Education, Journal of Engineering Education, 103(2), 302- 330
13. González, J., Wagenaar, R., & Beneitone, P. (2004). Tuning-América Latina: un proyecto de las universidades. Revista iberoamericana de educación, 35(1), 151-164.
14. Penttilä, T., & Kairisto-Mertanen, L. (2012). Innovation competence barometer ICB– A tool for assessing students' innovation as learning outcomes in higher education. Inted 2012 Proceedings, 6347-6351.
15. M. Virolainen. Workplace learning and higher education in finland: Reflections on current practice. Education & Training 49(4), pp. 290-309. 2007.
16. Penttilä, Kontio, Kairisto-Mertanen and Mertanen (2014). 1,2,3,4 Turku University of Applied Sciences, Sepänkatu 1, 20700 Turku, FINLAND. Integrating Innovation Pedagogy and CDIO Approach – Pedagogic and Didactic Viewpoints.
17. M. Borrego and J. Bernhard. The emergence of engineering education research as an internationally connected field of inquiry.J Eng Educ 100(1), pp. 14-47. 2011. Available: http://search.proquest.com/docview/857255466?accountid=175536.
18. R. Barr and J. Tagg. From teaching to learning-A new paradigm for undergraduate e Change; Nov 1995; 27, 6; Research Library Core pg. 12.