Active Learning And Action Research Outside Classroom Engineering With Social Impact

Active Learning and Action Research outside Classroom: Engineering
with Social Impact
Andrés Esteban Acero López
Ph.D. Student, Department of Industrial Engineering, Universidad de los Andes,
Bogotá, Colombia
Luisa Fernanda Payán Durán
M.A. Student, Interdisciplinary Centre for the Study of Development, Universidad de los
Andes, Bogotá, Colombia
María Catalina Ramírez Cajiao
Associate Professor, Department of Industrial Engineering, Universidad de los Andes,
Bogotá, Colombia
María Paula Flórez Jiménez
Professor, Department of Industrial Engineering, Universidad Sergio Arboleda,
Bogotá, Colombia
Acknowledgement
The team of EWB Colombia would like to acknowledge the participation and collaboration in
this research of the participant schools from the towns of Guasca, Guatavita, Sopó, La Calera and
Zipaqurá, as well as the students who took the course EWB project during 2014.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2965030

Active Learning and Action Research outside Classroom: Engineering
with Social Impact
The bridge between theory and practice is one of the toughest barriers that
engineering students should face while working for the first time. In addition,
Colombia has many prevailing needs that could be surpassed through engineering
sustainable solutions. Seeking to reduce this bridge, a methodology was proposed
to connect engineering students with rural communities with social, economic and
/or environmental needs using Participatory Action Research and CDIO. This
methodology involves a previous observation phase and evaluation criteria that
enhance a participative development of proposals of engineering with social
impact. This methodology was implemented in a middle-career course of Industrial
Engineering during 2014, where the results show that it allows students to develop
(1) professional skills related with communication and problem-solving, and (2)
feasible engineering proposals that go beyond traditional approaches.
Keywords: Active Learning, Gamification, Action Research, oCDIO, Engineering
Education
1. Introduction
Engineer plays a significant role in society, having a significant impact on the
diagnosis and design of social systems that contribute to the improvement of living
standards. This statement makes even more sense in countries where unmet basic
needs are a relevant concern. For example, in 2015, Colombia presented an alarming
poverty indicator. The percentage of people in poverty by national income was 27.8%
and the percentage of people living in extreme poverty was 7.9%. Only in Bogotá, the
main city, recorded a 10.4% poverty rate (DANE 2016). In addition, the increasing
inequality in the country plays an important role, reaching 0.535 on the Gini coefficient
in 2015 according to the World Bank (World Bank 2016).
Colombia requires professionals with the capacities to innovate, work together,
understand complex situations and generate feasible solutions (Caicedo 2011). An
interdisciplinary group of engineering students from different areas, such as

environmental, chemical and industrial engineering, asked themselves which kind of
research and learning models that will allow to find solutions capable of triggering
social impacts, should be developed in engineering universities. Aiming to answer this
question, the researchers created a group called Engineers without Borders Colombia
(EWB Colombia)1
. This organization develops methodologies for working with
vulnerable communities, in which students, professors and community learn how to
observe, research, design and develop solutions that make sense for the real problems
in the context of the vulnerable regions (Ramírez Cajiao et al. 2016).
The projects of EWB Colombia, which are developed in conjunction between
the interdisciplinary group of engineers and the community, tend to achieve inclusive
solutions within a framework of social innovation (Estensoro 2015). Working in a
participatory way with interdisciplinary groups, is both a challenge and an opportunity
to share different points of view in the development of projects, where problems are
evaluated on several dimensions taking into account the interests of the stakeholders,
and achieving double-way knowledge (Arias, et al. 2016). In this way, it is possible to
assure that the project will be beneficial to all the actors (Gilbert et al. 2015).
Therefore, the context in which EWB Colombia operates requires making an
appropriate research question, with an accordingly scheduled work plan, an accurate
theoretical context, suitable implemented methodologies and relevant learning
(Ramírez et al. 2011).
Engineering students are increasingly interested in contributing on the design
and development of effective solutions for the Colombian problems (Ramírez et al.
2011). Therefore, it is important that they know how engineering has a fundamental
1 For further information, visit (https://isfcolombia.uniandes.edu.co/index.php/english-version).

impact on the development of the country’s regions. Understanding which type of
engineering decisions lead the generation of poverty, is a big concern for teachers
(Nicolaou and Conlon 2012; Leal Filho and Pace 2016, chap. 6), researchers (Lemons
et al. 2014), professionals (Gómez Puente, van Eijck, and Jochems 2014), and students
(Lathem, Neumann, and Hayden 2011; Weber et al. 2014).
The challenge is to connect the engineering education and social impact on a
rural context. Major initiatives from the State, civil society and population in general
to alleviate poverty, have failed to create inclusive solutions within their area of study
(Acevedo et al. 2009). That is why EWB Colombia provides the students and engineers
with an opportunity to connect with the unknown realities and context of their own
country. These students discover harsh realities in which, among others, there are
people who have no access to drinking water, children drink polluted water and people
are forced to move in to cities due to a lack of opportunities in their regions (Ramírez
et al. 2011).
Therefore, the research question that has motivated the work of EWB
Colombia is what kind of research and learning models should be developed in
engineering universities, in order to develop solutions with a lasting social impact. The
present article summarizes one possible approach to this question and then applies it
to the case of the EWB middle-career project course, where students designed
solutions for the inadequate water management in one town of Colombia.
2. Theoretical Framework
One of the challenges that EWB Colombia found for teaching engineering with social
impact is how to bridge the classroom and the activities with communities. Accordingly,
this bridge will be build using some theoretical approaches from social science,
engineering projects, social innovation and education. Therefore, three scenarios give the

basis for an engineering education with social impact: oCDIO as a methodology for
project-based learning, Participatory Action Research (PAR) creating networks between
students and community, and gamification linking actively teaching and doing.
2.1 oCDIO Methodology
CDIO methodology, which is an innovative approach for developing skills on problem
solving through projects, represents an opportunity to teach inside and outside classroom.
From its origins on 1990s, CDIO has been a methodology well accepted on engineering
education because CDIO focuses on specific learning outcomes, on an active involvement
of the student and on a strong evaluation (Ulloa, et al. 2014). In addition, CDIO aims to
provide students with the necessary tools to deal innovatively and flexibly with complex
problems within a society (Peng, 2011).
One of the important properties related to social engagement of the CDIO is its
active learning perspective. As the Standard eighth of the Initiative CDIO (2015) says,
“teaching and learning based on active experiential learning methods” will be crucial
for spaces of practice in engineering at the classroom. Even more, outside of the
classroom, students can be working on projects under the CDIO perspective and learning
from other disciplines or other professionals in an active way. This is possible because
CDIO is an approach based on problem/project-based education (PBL) (Edström and
Kolmos 2014). The most important similarities between PBL and CDIO are summarized
in table 1.

Characteristic PBL perspective CDIO perspective
Definitions Three learning principles: Problem
orientation or cognitive learning,
content in the curriculum and social
approach by collaborative learning
The CDIO Standards: 12 standards
ranging from design, implementation
and evaluation.
Curriculum Use of the Aalborg curriculum
model.
An integrated curriculum based on
CDIO Standards.
Discipline Two approaches: a teacher-
controlled approach, and learner-
centered approach.
Discipline-led courses and an
integrated learning experience.
Engineering
Projects
Three different types of projects:
Assignment projects, discipline
projects and problem projects.
Design-build experience.
Change
Strategies
A change management perspective
is always present.
Recognition of deep understanding of
disciplines and involvement of
stakeholders outside academia.
Table 1. A comparison between PBL and CDIO based on Edström and Kolmos (2014)
For the dealt problems, EWB Colombia has developed an approach to CDIO
projects in five phases, the oCDIO methodology. The additional phase, observation, will
be an opportunity for students to create strong relationships with the community, and
interacting with them to understand the problematic situation (Arias, et al. 2016);
meanwhile, the other phases (Conceive, Design, Implement and Operate) are kept in the
same way as before. Applying this methodology, students generate prototypes that are
the result of a systematic analysis of the problematic situation, using technical knowledge,
teamwork and innovation (Licorish and MacDonell 2014). This methodology supply
tools to improve the intrinsic motivation of the students, allowing them to enhance their
learning process inside and outside the classroom (Tang, 2011), working on

environmental or economic problems on vulnerable communities (Hernández, Ramírez
and Carvajal 2011).
2.2 Social impact and action research
Since the last decades of the 20th
century, several research fields, particularly
psychology, education, and engineering, have been having great changes that set
significant differences in the ontological, epistemological, ethical, and methodological
dimensions of how to approach community work (Langdon and Larweh 2015). Until mid-
twentieth century, social impact research was strictly framed into a quantitative focus, led
by natural sciences or hard sciences (Lleras 1996), using positivist, coherent
characteristics with the subject-object relation, experimentation, objectivity, proof,
validity, and reliability as indispensable conditions(Fals-borda 1987). As an alternative
for social approaches, using hard sciences stands the action research, specifically
participatory action research.
Participatory Action Research (PAR) is a methodology that presents research
processes as an integrating activity that combines social research, work, and action
(Colmenares E. 2011). Its fundamental purpose is based on producing knowledge upon
and being aware on the changes on the subjects’ day-to-day reality joined to the collective
learning. Instead of intricate routines of traditional scientific research where technical
language and complex statistical procedures prevail, knowledge must be presented,
summarized and understandable (Stringer 1999). As a result, PAR is a methodology that
allows linking theory and practice on knowledge and research (See Figure 1). During its
four phases (observe, think, act and reflect) the practitioner will learn by doing, focusing
on processes of observation, on group thinking and acting according to the appropriate
solutions.

Figure 1. Interaction between practice and knowledge through PAR. (Thompson 2013)
PAR is suitable for project development because of four specific characteristics.
First, in this methodology, communities participate actively in the evaluation of the
problem and the implementation of projects, generally focused on natural resource
management and sustainable solutions (Pain, Whitman y Milledge 2012). Second, this
method is suitable for working with projects with rural communities because it helps with
the emergence of sustainable solutions, generating a progressive change in society and
increasing the degree of community involvement. Furthermore, PAR allows projects and
practitioner to achieve accurate feedback and adjustments for the proposals (Mackenzie
et al. 2012). Finally, PAR ease institutions contribution to the community as part of their
social responsibility, open to real problems and real solutions, and generate processes of
teaching and research involving all stakeholders (Hernández, Ramírez Cajiao y Carvajal
Díaz 2010).
As an engineering methodology applied to solution of problems on rural areas,
PAR stands as a new approach for engineering education. For example, Kemmis,
McTaggart & Nixon (2014) provides evidence on how an education based on the critical
view of practice PAR generates integrative and innovative solutions between students
and people, taking into account its social and environmental rules. Other authors such as
Stringer (2004), Fals-Borda (1987) or Freire (Gerhardt 1993) claim the importance of
designed educational systems as a “roadmap” for the development of the communities.

In Colombia, these approaches of engineering thinking and social impact using
PAR are an emergent research field. One of these examples is presented by Barros and
Ramírez (2009), which proved that PAR methodology is an ideal tool to formulate,
implement and evaluate social projects for an Industrial Engineering program. In
addition, Lleras (2002) proposes thinking of engineering projects as pedagogical projects,
where students are also engineers and change makers.
2.3 Learning by playing: Gamification
The traditional engineering education is focused on instruction and transmission models
in which students are recipients and teachers sent quantifiable information (Bodnar et al.
2016). Some advances on teaching techniques using active learning stands as an
alternative of shifting teaching models, but they are not creating spaces for engagement
inside classroom (Hamari et al. 2016). It have some effects on teaching style (Ambrosio
Mawhirter and Ford Garofalo 2016), communication (Gilbert et al. 2015), teamwork
(Ramirez, Jimenez, and Hernandez 2007) and engagement (Seixas, Sandro, and Jos
2016). Another perspective for active learning stands in gaming and gamification.
Gamification is, by definition, the application of game characteristics in non-game
contexts to make it more compromising, fun and enjoyable (Robson, Plangger,
Kietzmann, McCarthy, et al. 2015). Gamification is close to people because while playing
and competing they reach high levels of commitment (Swann, 2012). Additionally, this
methodology focuses on problem solving by its mechanics of participation and audience
engagement, which is possible by the use of gaming elements and thoughts (Zichermann,
2010).

2.3.1 Gamification in educational contexts
The interest of gamification and the research on its applications has been widely diffused,
especially for computer-centered interactions. Also, research on educational gamification
shows that performance (Garcia-lopez and Garcia-cabot 2016), flow, immersion(Hamari
et al. 2016) and engagement (Rose et al. 2011) are improved using it. However, why
gamification works on educational contexts? That is because gamification can change
participant behavior and motivational drivers in two related courses of action:
reinforcements and emotions (Robson, Plangger, Kietzmann, and Mccarthy 2015).
Robson et al (2015) claims that can be achieved applying three principles: creating and
setting up the mechanics, identifying the emotions involved and guiding the players’
behaviors through some dynamics.
In addition, the use of ICT on gamification processes has shown a contribution to
engineering education. The power of social connections with different people from
different cultures (Kotini y Tzelepi 2015) in game-based environments develops the soft
skills of the gaming process participants (Heinzen et al., 2015) by working together.
Finally, understanding of process of evolution of technology on the classroom and their
relation with gaming and learning (Devers y Gurung 2015) can be an opportunity for the
development of new tools, techniques or approaches.
3. Proposed methodology
The previous theoretical framework stands some positions about how social impact and
engineering education can be accomplished, sustained and developed; however, each one
of these methodologies does not respond for the necessities of teaching engineering with
real impact on social systems. For that, EWB designed an integrative model that includes
oCDIO phases, PAR social commitment aspects and gamification as an integrator
element (Oliveira and Oliveira 2014).

3.1 Objectives of the methodology
EWB Colombia designed a learning space where engineering students’ work becomes
real by interacting directly with vulnerable communities. The methodology is based on
guidelines for work that students, professors, practitioners and volunteers on EWB
Colombia must understand, develop and share. These guidelines or objectives point
important characteristics of the social-responsible engineering, solution-based thinking
and technological positivism for development. These objectives are:
 Recognize the contribution of engineering in improving life quality for
communities.
 Identify the specific problems of vulnerable communities and the opportunities
for intervention from engineering.
 Apply science and technology knowledge in projects that address issues in
vulnerable communities.
 Work in multidisciplinary teams for the conception, design and implementation
of innovative solutions to social problems.
3.2 Design of the methodology and phases
In this regard, the theoretical proposals outlined above have been integrated to provide a
working methodology in conjunction with vulnerable communities. The following table
provides a description of the methodology that is performed:
Phase Description
To observe The student requires real evidence such as indicators, situations,
knowledge of the problem. This is a phase where the engineer is linked, as
stated at the beginning of this phase, at an early stage that will allow you to
delve into the collective design community.

To Conceive The articulation with traditional engineering project is when, after having
evidence of variables and their relations, a process of initial conception of
ideas that can lead to future co-construction of a solution starts.
To Design Participatory spaces are designed, i.e. where ideas knowledge, interests and
various resources translate into designs and innovative actions that provide
creative solutions.
To Implement They manage to develop activities that contribute to the solution and give
an answer to the co-design
To Operate Actions are monitored and justified to see both, if the project contributed to
changing the environment and quality of life of people. This phase requires
ongoing monitoring where it is seen that not only the technical solution is
taking effect, but also the co-participation in all phases has generated value
added in the whole process.
Table 2. oCDIO Context
The participatory component, drawn from PAR, is transversal to the oCDIO phases,
meaning that each one of them should be developed together with the community. That
is why it becomes important that learning is not give exclusively in college classrooms
but directly in contexts with different problems. Gamification principles are used to
increase the community involvement by using competitive games where cell phones or
computers are used to record data on the evolution of the solution in which the problem
situation is integrated.
To identify if the development process is suitable, engineering students should learn to
follow the monitoring process to identify if you are working on the development of an
engineering process capable of generating a social impact. Thus, when the project is at an
advanced stage outside observers are invited to support their process by evaluating their
proposals under the EWB Colombia solutions evaluation criteria (see Table 3). These

criteria were developed by EWB Colombia to make sure the solutions proposed by the
students are realistic, scalable and are the optimal way to tackle the problem under study.
Criteria Description
Viable
Seeks the optimization of resources: economic, human and
environmental that the proposal requires. Performing a basic assumption
in these respects to demonstrate the viability is necessary.
Profitable
The project has the capacity to generate enough profit or gain; it
generates more income than expenses.
Environmentally
responsible
Consider the environmental effects it generates. Both benefits and
environmental costs.
Socially inclusive
The target community should be active actor in the proposal.
Engineering solution
The implementation of the engineering tools and the theoretical aspects
regarding this that are being included in the proposal must be clear.
Innovative Seeks creative and innovative components.
Technically possible Somehow it must demonstrate that the proposal is feasible in the specific
context
High Impact
It should be an easily replicable proposal or benefit a large number of
people.
Table 3. EWB Colombia solutions evaluation criteria

Findings- Case study
Overview
During both studying semesters of 2014, 31 students toke the course “Proyecto
Intermedio ISF” (EWB – middle-career project). This course seeks to involve teachers,
students, professionals and community members to promote sustainable development
through engineering projects. This course an elective for students in the 5th
or 6th
semester
on industrial engineering undergraduate program, but they can also choose an internship
in a company or doing a business plan. According to students’ opinion, this course has a
different focus because they can apply their engineering knowledge in real situations, and
this course is the only available option that university offers to solve real problems.
Through the semester, the students were working on groups, which were assigned
to work with students from the last high school years from a school in a rural area. Each
one of the groups should develop a proposal that elicits the following challenge:
‘How to foster water savings through an engineering project or an innovate business?’
Only two conditions were necessary to accomplish this task: First, the proposed
solution will respond to community ideas and expectations, all of which were addressed
with the PAR methodology and, second, all activity will be designed along with their
partners using gamified processes. In addition, knowledge creation and transfer take place
in a context of scientific and engineering research where social justice and economic and
environmental responsibility are encouraged.
To Observe
The objective of this phase was to understand what the real problem was. To accomplish
this task, students proposed questions that enabled a discussion with the school students
about their reality and the use of natural resources in their houses. In addition, college
students designed activities and games to create an active and safe space to talk, think,

and articulate a discourse about their environment. Thus, college student proposes,
present and perform their activities and questions, and everyone votes for the best activity.
With this input, everyone designed the guidelines about the activities to be accomplished
in fieldwork. Finally, this information was recorded using field journals, draws from
schools students and questionnaires.
Figure 2 . College students and school students participating in observation activities
The students were also connected with entrepreneurs and farmers of the region,
so they could interview them and have a perspective of the problem from different
stakeholders’ point of view. After the activities, the students organize the information
using guidelines provided by teachers and teacher assistants. With this information,
several problematic situations and social and technological characteristics were
identified, such as:
 1/5 of the municipalities involved do not promote access to higher education
or programs for entrepreneurship.
 More than a half of the students consider that they have enough water, but
they also think they are not using it appropriately.
 Each member of the family has at least one basic cellphone.
 Only one-half of the houses have access to internet and less than 35% of
students have internet in the school.

Accordingly, students perceived how social and cultural structures affects the
decision-making process around environmental issues. Using this information as input,
students should conceive an engineering solution that connects the proposed challenge
with the particular community situation.
Conceive and Design
The students were motivated to use the collected information to do some research on
secondary sources to learn more about the context, so they could reach a feasible proposal.
In this phase, the students should use what they found about the community and the
problem, as well as their own engineering knowledge, to develop a solution that was able
to accomplish all the EWB criteria. A range of proposals were nominated by the students,
from using technological gadgets to reduce the showering time, to generate an educative
game about water consumption embedded in Facebook.
Then, the first proposals were shared with the high school students with the aim
to: get some feedback, prove the feasibility of the proposal and, the most important part,
keep developing the proposal with the community. For this, every group designed their
own workshop, motivating the students to consider the best methodological approach for
the goal they had. This process of validating and reinforcing the idea with the main
stakeholders was repeated three times during the semester, so at the end the students had
feasible proposals that could really tackle the problem they diagnosed. It is important to
keep on mind that although the main problem was the same, according to their
observation phase, the groups focused on different aspects that affect that main problem,
and that were problems by themselves.
The students are encouraged to use the EWB criteria through all the conceiving
and designing process, as it consider most of the variables that should be kept on mind
while developing their proposal and that should be shared and worked with the

community. The resume of the first 3 stages of the oCDIO methodology in the EWB –
middle-career project course is to be found on the Figure 3.
Figure 3 . oCDIO methodology used on EWB – middle-career project course
Implement and Operate
These phases require funding and a lot of time to be done. Therefore, they are beyond the
EWB – middle-career project course objectives. However, it might be possible that one
of the students’ proposals is further developed together by the EWB team and actually
implemented. Such is the case of AquaSie, a game developed by three students on the
second semester of 2014 to tackle de water management problem applying gamification
principles. Some concepts of the proposal were used to design La Liga del Agua (the
Water League), where more than 1.500 students of 9 municipalities of Colombia
participate on a competence to save water and design saving water devices.
Observe
- Workshops
- Interviews
-Research
Conceive
- Engineering
knowledge
- Secondary sources
Design
- Feedack and co-
design
- Validation
PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH

AquaSie
On the observation phase, the students did the workshops in one school of Guasca,
Cundinamarca. Before the first visit to the community, they were required to do a research
on the town, as well as their economic and natural sources so they were aware of the
context. They were also connected with one entrepreneur of Guasca that creates vertical
gardens and has become very famous because of his environmentally friendly and socially
inclusive business. From this inputs, the students diagnosed that although Guasca was a
town with full access to water there was a misconception of abundance that led to a huge
misuse of the resource. In addition, that some people on the town were open to embrace
innovative solutions and most of them count with good connectivity.
On the conceiving and designing phases, the students proposed three solutions
based on the information collected and the engineering tools they had learned so far, and
then chose the best one considering their own criteria. They went back to the school two
times to develop workshops with the students, aiming to: collect more information about
the potential users of the game, get feedback on their initial idea and keep on developing
the idea together with the community, so it could fit both their needs and expectations.
After this, the concept of AquaSie was born: considering that students and the
community in general needed to be educated on the adequate use of the water resource, a
game could be developed, where they could learn about their consumption and good
practices that could be done. On the game, the users should enter daily information on
their consumption by giving the water consumption information of their water counter.
The game consisted on several levels that increase their difficulty and where they
can earn points according to their performance (Figure 4). To get from a level to another,
they should answer some questions related with the water (water cycle, consumption,
saving techniques, pollution, global warming, etc.). The users could compete against their

Facebook friends and other unknown people around the globe. The way the idea fulfills
the EWB criteria is shown on Table 4.
Figure 4 . AquaSie prototype interface
Criteria Description
Viable
It is based on an existing knowledge and seeks to promote the
saving culture that already exists in the region. It also takes into
account the existing capacities and connectivity.
Profitable
It requires a quit big seed founding. After that, profits might come from
ads.
Environmentally
responsible
It reinforces the water management in the region and bases on the
already used technologies.
Socially inclusive
It will be developed together with the beneficiaries, so it would take into
account their needs and barriers.
Engineering solution
It requires the development of a complex software and also suggest an
improvement for a social system according to contextual and resources
limitations.

Innovative It is based on a daily used tool (Facebook) but introduces in this the
possibility both to learn and to save water, redefining it.
Technically possible
It requires the use of technological tools that are already being used by
the community. Therefore, it is not necessary to develop new skills
High Impact
As it operates through a social network, the users could not only play the
game, but also interact with the community. Therefore, the game can
reach people all over the country and beyond, having a high impact
potential.
Table 4. EWB criteria for AquaSie project.
CONCLUSIONS
This study reveals the need for further that links theory and practice in engineering
education. Even when some empirical research has been developed in the last years,
integrative and comprehensive approaches should be design and implemented in
engineering schools to achieve sustainable solutions with social impact. This
methodological proposal is one of the infinite possibilities that allows the involvement of
students and community through engineering practice. This “hands-on” approach
suggested by EWB Colombia allows engineering students to connect with the reality and
the context under study, get first-hand information from the stakeholders and conceive
solutions that are pertinent and adequate for the problem they are trying to tackle.
In addition, the implementation of evaluation criteria for such engineering
projects allows non-traditional engineering facets to be considered in the development of
the solutions. Furthermore, the inclusion of participative approaches forces the students
to work on their soft skills, essential for their professional growth.
References
Acevedo, Jorge, Ricardo Barros, Catalina Ramírez, and Natalia Realpe. 2009.
“Engineers and Their Role in Public Policy: An Active Learning Experience for

Enhancing the Understanding of the State.” European Journal of Engineering
Education 34 (September): 171–82. doi:10.1080/03043790902835932.
Ambrosio Mawhirter, Deborah, and Patricia Ford Garofalo. 2016. “Expect the
Unexpected: Simulation Games as a Teaching Strategy.” Clinical Simulation in
Nursing 12 (4): 132–36. doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2015.12.009.
Arias, Janneth, María Catalina Ramírez Cajiao, Diana María Duarte, María Paula
Flórez, and Juan Pablo Sanabria. 2016. "poCDIO: A Methodological Proposal
for Promoting Active Participation in Social Engineering Projects." Systemic
Practice and Action Research (Springer US) 29 (4): 379–403.
Barros, Ricardo, y Catalina Ramírez. 2009. «Modelo de aprendizaje activo para
desarrollar habilidades de identificación, formulación y resolución de problemas
de ingeniería industrial.» Revista Educación en Ingeniería 4 (7): 74-83.
Bodnar, Cheryl A., Daniel Anastasio, Joshua A. Enszer, and Daniel D. Burkey. 2016.
“Engineers at Play: Games as Teaching Tools for Undergraduate Engineering
Students.” Journal of Engineering Education 105 (1): 147–200.
doi:10.1002/jee.20106.
Caicedo, Luis Camilo. 2011. “Participatory Framework to Design Local Development
Plans Case Study: Guasca, Cundinamarca.”
CDIO Initiative. 2015. CDIO Standards 2.0. Accessed January 15, 2016.
http://www.cdio.org/implementing-cdio/standards/12-cdio-standards#standard8.
Colmenares E., Ana Mercedes. 2011. “Investigación-Acción Participativa : Una
Metodología Integradora Del Conocimiento Y La Acción.” Voces Y Silencios:
Revista Latinoamericana de Educación 3 (1): 102–15.
DANE. 2016. «Departamento Nacional de Estadística.» Pobreza monetaria y
multidimensional en Colombia. 18 de May.
http://www.dane.gov.co/files/investigaciones/condiciones_vida/pobreza/2015/B
ogota_Pobreza_2015.pdf.
Davim, J Paulo, and Walter Leal Filho. 2016. Challenges in Higher Education for
Sustainability. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23705-3.
Devers, Christopher, y Regan Gurung. 2015. «Critical Perspective on Gamification in
Education.» En Gamification in Education and Business, de Torsten Reiners y
Lincoln Wood, 417- 430. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.

Edström, Kristina, and Anette Kolmos. 2014. “PBL and CDIO: Complementary Models
for Engineering Education Development.” European Journal of Engineering
Education 3797 (June 2015): 1–17. doi:10.1080/03043797.2014.895703.
Estensoro, Miren. 2015. “How Can Social Innovation Be Facilitated? Experiences from
an Action Research Process in a Local Network.” Systemic Practice and Action
Research 28 (6). Springer US: 527–45. doi:10.1007/s11213-015-9347-2.
Fals-borda, Orlando. 1987. “The Application of Participatory Action Research in Latin
America.” International Sociology 2 (4): 329–47.
Gerhardt, Heinz-Peter. 1993. «Paulo Freire.» Perspectivas: revista trimestral de
educación (UNESCO) XXIII (3-4): 463-484.
Gilbert, Dorie J, Mary Lehman Held, Janet L Ellzey, William T Bailey, and Laurie B
Young. 2015. “Teaching ‘Community Engagement’ in Engineering Education
for International Development: Integration of an Interdisciplinary Social Work
Curriculum.” European Journal of Engineering Education 40 (3): 256–66.
doi:10.1080/03043797.2014.944103.
Gómez Puente, Sonia M., Michiel van Eijck, and Wim Jochems. 2014. “Professional
Development for Design-Based Learning in Engineering Education: A Case
Study.” European Journal of Engineering Education 40 (1): 14–31.
doi:10.1080/03043797.2014.903228.
Hamari, Juho, David J. Shernoff, Elizabeth Rowe, Brianno Coller, Jodi Asbell-Clarke,
and Teon Edwards. 2016. “Challenging Games Help Students Learn: An
Empirical Study on Engagement, Flow and Immersion in Game-Based
Learning.” Computers in Human Behavior 54. Elsevier Ltd: 170–79.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.045.
Hernández, José Tiberio, María Catalina Ramírez, and Javier Alejandro Carvajal. 2011.
"Observe, Conceive, Design, Implement and Operate: Innovation for
Sustainability." In Technological, Managerial and Organizational Core
Competencies: Dynamic Innovation and Sustainable Development, by Farley
Simon Nobre, David Walker and Robert Harris, 105-134. Hershey, Pensilvania:
Business Science Referencie.
Hernández, José Tiberio, María Ramírez Cajiao, y Alejandro Carvajal Díaz. 2010.
«Formación para la innovación con TIC: Un proyecto conjunto Facultad de
Ingeniería- Empresarios.» Revista Educación en Ingeniería 5 (9): 12-20.

Kemmis, Stephen, Robin McTaggary, y Rhonda Nixon. 2014. The Action Research
Planner. Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media.
Kotini, Isabella, y Sofia Tzelepi. 2015. «A Gamification- Based Framework for
Developing Learning Activities of Computational Thinking.» En Gamification
in Education and Business, de Torsten Reiners y Lincoln Wood, 219-252.
Dordretch: Springer Science+Business Media.
Langdon, J., and K. Larweh. 2015. “Moving with the Movement: Collaboratively
Building a Participatory Action Research Study of Social Movement Learning in
Ada, Ghana.” Action Research 13 (3): 281–97. doi:10.1177/1476750315572447.
Lathem, Sandra, Maureen Neumann, and Nancy Hayden. 2011. “The Socially
Responsible Engineer: Assessing Student Attitudes of Roles and
Responsabilities.” Journal of Engineering Education 100 (3): 444–74.
Leal Filho, Walter, and Paul Pace. 2016. Teaching Education for Sustainable
Development at University Level. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-32928-4.
Lemons, Christopher J., Douglas Fuchs, Jennifer K. Gilbert, and Lynn S. Fuchs. 2014.
“Evidence-Based Practices in a Changing World: Reconsidering the
Counterfactual in Education Research.” Educational Researcher 53 (5): 242–52.
doi:10.3102/0013189X14539189.
Licorish, Sherlock A., and Stephen G. MacDonell. 2014. “Understanding the Attitudes,
Knowledge Sharing Behaviors and Task Performance of Core Developers: A
Longitudinal Study.” Information and Software Technology 56 (12). Elsevier
B.V.: 1578–96. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2014.02.004.
Lleras, Ernesto. 1996. “Is It Possible to Develop an Emancipatory Approach to
Technology?” Systems Practice 9 (4): 333–38. doi:10.1007/BF02169220.
———. 2002. “Las Comunidades de Aprendizaje Como Ámbitos de Construcción de
Mundo.” Manual de Iniciación Pedagógica Al Pensamiento Complejo, 1–11.
http://teso.uniandes.edu.co/Las comunidades de aprendizaje.pdf.
Mackenzie, John, Poh-Ling Tan, Suzanne Hoverman, and Claudia Baldwin. 2012. “The
Value and Limitations of Participatory Action Research Methodology.” Journal
of Hydrology 474. Elsevier B.V.: 11–21. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.09.008.
Nicolaou, I., and E. Conlon. 2012. “What Do Final Year Engineering Students Know
about Sustainable Development?” European Journal of Engineering Education
37 (3): 267–77. doi:10.1080/03043797.2012.681863.

Pain, Rachel, Geoff Whitman, y David Milledge. 2012. Participatory Action Research
Toolkit: An Introduction to Using PAR as an Approach to Learning, Research
and Action. Durham, Durham: Durham University.
Ramirez, Catalina, Nestor Alexander Jimenez, and José Tiberio Hernandez. 2007.
“Teamwork and Innovation Competencies : A First Semester Engineering
Students Hands-on Course.” Engineering Education.
Ramírez, María Catalina, Irene Bengo, Riccardo Mereu, Astrid Ximena Bejarano R.,
and Juan Camilo Silva. 2011. “Participative Methodology for Local
Development: The Contribution of Engineers Without Borders from Italy and
Colombia: Towards the Improvement of Water Quality in Vulnerable
Communities.” Systemic Practice and Action Research 24 (1): 45–66.
doi:10.1007/s11213-010-9175-3.
Ramírez Cajiao, María Catalina, Juan Pablo Sanabria Céspedes, Diana María Duarte,
and Andrés Esteban Acero López. 2016. “INGENIEROS SIN FRONTERAS
COLOMBIA: Improvement of Water Quality in Santa Isabel de Potosí.”
Rodriguez Casal, Carlos. 2007. “ICT for Education and Development.” Info 9 (4): 3–9.
doi:10.1108/14636690710762093.
Seixas, Rocha, Alex Sandro, and Ivanildo Jos. 2016. “Effectiveness of Gamification in
the Engagement of Students.” Computers in Human Behavior 58: 48–63.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.021.
Stringer, Ernest. 1999. Action Research. Edited by Peter Labella. Second edi. Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
———. 2004. Action Research in Education. Perth: Pearson Education.
Thompson, Kayla. 2013. Good Design is a Good Business. December. Último acceso:
October de 2015. http://kaylaashley345.blogspot.com.co/2013/12/participatory-
action-research-par.html.
Ulloa, Gonzalo, Norha Villegas, Sandra Céspedes, Juliana Jaramillo, and María Ayala.
2014. "Proceso de implementación de CDIO." Encuentro Internacional de
Educación en Ingeniería ACOFI 2014.
Weber, Nicole R, Johannes Strobel, Melissa A Dyehouse, Constance Harris, Ray David,
Jun Fang, and Inez Hua. 2014. “First-Year Students’ Environmental Awareness
and Understanding of Environmental Sustainability through a Life Cycle
Assessment Module.” Journal of Engineering Education 103 (1): 154–81.
doi:10.1002/jee.20032.

World Bank. 2016. Índice de Gini.
http://datos.bancomundial.org/indicador/SI.POV.GINI?locations=CO.

Active Learning And Action Research Outside Classroom Engineering With Social Impact

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Active Learning And Action Research Outside Classroom Engineering With Social Impact

Similar to Active Learning And Action Research Outside Classroom Engineering With Social Impact (20)

More from Allison Thompson

More from Allison Thompson (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Active Learning And Action Research Outside Classroom Engineering With Social Impact