Study on the implementation of active learning methodologies and assessment strategies in engineering degrees
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26507/paper.4672Keywords:
Engineering programs, learning assessment, active methodologiesAbstract
Engineering programs in Argentina are undergoing a paradigm shift in teaching and learning processes as part of the implementation of second-generation engineering education standards and ARCUSUR standards. This transition requires the academic community to move from a traditional model to a student-centered approach.
In this context, the relationship between a course’s curricular program—also known as the pedagogical contract—and the development of classroom experiences is dynamic and adaptive. The program serves as a reference framework, defining the course content, competencies, and learning outcomes while functioning as a flexible starting point that allows adjustments based on classroom context. Meanwhile, classroom experiences encompass the strategies, methodologies, and activities designed to facilitate student learning, prioritizing active participation and experiential learning while aligning with the program’s learning outcomes.
This study is based on a documentary analysis of the Applied Technologies course block within the engineering programs offered by the Faculty of Engineering and Agricultural Sciences at the National University of San Luis, Argentina. Its objective is to identify which student-centered learning methodologies are selected and implemented by instructors in their courses and to analyze the coherence between these methodologies and the assessment strategies employed. The selection of the Applied Technologies block is justified by its inclusion of courses that contribute to students' graduate profiles.
Among the various findings, a trend toward the incorporation of student-centered teaching methodologies in course programs is observed. However, in some cases, there remains a lack of alignment between these methodologies and assessment strategies. This discrepancy creates an inconsistency that could limit the effectiveness of the new pedagogical strategies.
Author Biographies
Viviana Lucía Gasull, Universidad Nacional de San Luis
Claudio Savini, Universidad Nacional de San Luis
Patricia Beatriz Gimeno, Universidad Nacional de San Luis
References
Antón, M. (2010). Aprendizaje basado en problemas: Estrategias para el desarrollo de competencias. Editorial Sìntesis
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
CONFEDI. Consejo Federal de Decanos de Ingeniería (2018). Estándares de Segunda Generación. Universidad FASTA Ediciones.
Díaz Barriga, F. (2006). El contrato pedagógico: Una mirada crítica sobre la relación docente-estudiante. Editorial Magisterio
Harden, R. M. (2002). Learning outcomes and instructional objectives: Is there a difference? Medical Teacher, 24(2), 151–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159022020687
Kolb, D. A. (1984). El aprendizaje experiencial: La fuente del aprendizaje y el desarrollo. Editorial Paidós
Piaget, J. (1971). Biología y conocimiento: Ensayo sobre las relaciones entre los procesos orgánicos y los procesos cognitivos. Editorial Morata.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Tejada Fernández, J. (2009). Competencias profesionales del siglo XXI: Formación y desarrollo. Narcea.
Zabalza Beraza, M. A. (2012). El aprendizaje universitario. Narcea
How to Cite
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Proceeding
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Asociación Colombiana de Facultades de Ingeniería - ACOFI

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
| Article metrics | |
|---|---|
| Abstract views | |
| Galley vies | |
| PDF Views | |
| HTML views | |
| Other views | |


