International Journal of Engineering Education Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 1129–1140, 2019 0949-149X/91 $3.00+0.

00
Printed in Great Britain # 2019 TEMPUS Publications.

Changing an Engineering Curriculum through a

Co-Construction Process: A Case Study*
OCTAVIO MATTASOGLIO NETO
Mauá Institute of Technology, Basic Cycle, São Caetano do Sul, São Paulo, 09580-900, Brazil. E-mail: omattasoglio@maua.br

RUI M. LIMA
Department of Production and Systems, ALGORITMI Centre, School of Engineering, University of Minho, Campus of Azurém, 4800-
058 Guimarães, Portugal. E-mail: rml@dps.uminho.pt

DIANA MESQUITA
Research Centre on Child Studies, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal. E-mail: diana@dps.uminho.pt

The objective of this work is to present a co-construction process of an Engineering curriculum, which used different active
learning approaches to motivate students by addressing realistic problems faced by engineers, right from the beginning of
the program. Idealized by the rectory of the institution, in a top-down decision, the new curriculum established certain
guidelines for these new approaches. In a bottom-up contribution to the curriculum, teachers had to devise, implement and
conduct activities. At an early stage, these activities were classified into three types: Projects, Engineering Practices, and
Workshops. To analyze the implementation of this new curriculum, a qualitative approach was used during and data were
collected through interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires. The results indicate that teachers who devised the activities
played an important role in determining several aspects aimed at formalizing the new curriculum in a co-construction
process, increasing the accuracy of the ideas presented in the idealization phase. Despite the benefits of these experiences,
the results suggest that the potential of the new curriculum was not entirely fulfilled at this initial phase, particularly
regarding the development of soft skills. Therefore, adjustments are needed to take full advantage of the changes.
Keywords: curricular change; project-based learning; engineering education; active learning; curriculum co-construction

1. Introduction  International influences: posed by the market or

by the engineering education community, serving
Active approaches to promote the learning [1] can as a beacon, inspiration and support for local
be introduced in engineering curricula in different decisions, as well as cooperating to introduce
configurations [2–4]. In some cases, they arise from educational innovation initiatives.
individual teacher efforts or, in others, they arise  Students: can be seen as ‘‘the eyes of consumers’’,
from a small group of teachers who introduce who give feedback on the teaching and learning
strategies such as Peer Instruction [5], Flipped process, and act as sensors of the labor market.
Classroom [6] or even Team Based Learning [7].  Universities: in the case of engineering, bringing
There are also schools that make an institutional influences of external and internal validation in
decision to implement active strategies throughout the country, through connections with other
the program, such as the experiences reported by schools, their deans, and professionals.
Frenay et al. [2], Oliveira [3], Fernandes et al. [8],  Governments: which, in addition to influencing
and Lima et al. [9], all of which involved curricular the previous items through government policies,
changes. are responsible for enabling, organizing, evaluat-
Powell and Weenk [10] argue that shifting to ing and/or certifying the infrastructure support-
Project Based Learning (PBL) strategies is moti- ing engineering programs.
vated by vision, consensus, or faith. Rarely this
In Brazil, engineering programs follow the National
change is voluntary and may be motivated by
Curricular Guidelines [11, 12] which orient under-
government agencies or by the universities them-
graduate engineering programs, with flexibility to
selves. According to these authors, six factors
address different contexts. They allow for contin-
influence higher education policies in engineering:
uous improvement and the introduction of innova-
 Employers: by establishing market directives. tion, such as new technologies and strategies. These
 Professional bodies: group of professional engi- guidelines indicate that engineering training aims to
neers and academics who, in associations, influ- provide the future professional with the following
ence the training of engineers, such as the ABET general competences [12]: I. Formulating and
(Accreditation Board for Engineering and Tech- designing desirable engineering solutions, analyzing
nology). and understanding the users of these solutions and

* Accepted 8 April 2019. 1129

1130 Octavio Mattasoglio Neto et al.

their contexts. II. Analyzing and understanding idea and produces an immediate result. It is a
physical and chemical phenomena through sym- process of co-construction, where teachers have
bolic, physical, and other models, verified and part of the responsibility in the decisions, as well
validated by experimentation. III. Conceiving, as other stakeholders [14, 15].
designing and analyzing systems, products (goods This article aims to analyze and evaluate the first
and services), components or processes. IV. Imple- year of implementation of a curricular change at a
menting, supervising and controlling engineering Brazilian engineering school. This curricular change
solutions. V. Effective written, oral and graphic aimed to put the students at the center of the
communication. VI. Working with and leading learning process. The initiative was launched by
multidisciplinary teams. VII. Being aware of and the rectory of the school and was presented to the
ethically complying with legislation and the norma- faculty, which started working to formalize and to
tive acts when exercising the profession. VIII. Being put the new curriculum into operation. Implemen-
capable of learning and dealing with complex situa- tation was not linear, and there were different
tions and contexts in an autonomous manner, interpretations of the process by the participants,
keeping abreast of advances in science, technology issues which will be discussed in this study. The
and the challenges of innovation. central elements of the curriculum, such as the
Considering the openness stated in the National different pedagogical approaches aimed at increas-
Curricular Guidelines for engineering programs, ing student participation in the process, the roles of
the Mauá Institute of Technology, a Brazilian students and teachers, and the students’ learning
school, initiated a process of curricular change achievements are discussed. This evaluation con-
aiming to promote the development of transversal sidered the perspectives of the teachers, managers,
competences, preparing students to meet the needs and students involved in the change implementation
of the market, beginning in the initial undergradu- process, during one and a half academic year, since
ate program courses. The new curriculum foresees the beginning of the implementation.
the replacement of traditional classroom hours by
projects and workshops, aiming to develop both 2. Research background
technical and transversal competences, increasing
the students’ ability to approach engineering pro- Curriculum development involves three stages: pre-
blems. Another motivation to the curricular change paration, implementation and evaluation. It is a
was the visit by the pro-rector to an US university, collective process, which includes people and pro-
with similar characteristics, where the extra-curri- cedures and involves interpersonal, political and
cular activities carried out by the students had great social dimensions, in addition to the collaboration
importance in their curriculum. and cooperation of those involved. It is neither a
Previously, the school had a traditional structure, rational scientific process, due to the subjectivity
comprised mainly of lectures followed by exercises involved, nor a linear or systematized process. The
and laboratory work. The principle was that stu- subjective guidelines and its flexible features give
dents would feel more motivated to learn if, from the curricular design a degree of openness, different
beginning of the program, they were given the from the design of a mechanism or a prototype [16].
opportunity of being involved in projects, work- From the conception up to its complete imple-
shops, and working in engineering laboratories. In mentation, the curriculum undergoes different
addition to enhancing motivation, the adoption of levels. Goodlad [17] indicates the starting point of
various pedagogical approaches would promote the a curriculum is an ‘‘ideal curriculum’’. After this
development of transversal competences aligned initial step, there is the ‘‘formal curriculum’’, which
with the professional needs. These are beliefs, or is revealed in the curriculum documents, such as
faith, as stated by Powell and Wink [10], that started manuals and textbooks, and translates into the
the change. official curriculum. The third step is the ‘‘opera-
The introduction of active learning approaches is tional curriculum’’, which is developed by a group
not an easy task, and some difficulties may arise, or single individual, which translates the ideas and
such as teacher resistance, the lack of adequate formalism defined in the previous step into daily
infrastructure, and/or of support of school manage- practice. Lastly, there is the ‘‘perceived curricu-
ment [13]. Faculty commitment is a key issue, lum’’, which is experienced daily classroom activity.
because of their close interaction with students There is also the ‘‘evaluated curriculum’’, which
and because they face infrastructure challenges. includes student assessment, and of curricular
Convincing them to work together to promote plans, programs, guidelines, manuals and text-
curricular change can be regarded as one of the books, teachers, school, and administration.
main challenges in curriculum change. Curriculum To address the difficulties in training new engi-
change is not a linear process which begins with an neers, Problem and Project-Based Learning (PBL)
Changing an Engineering Curriculum through a Co-Construction Process: A Case Study 1131

strategies are alternatives to traditional approaches dent learning; academic staff and facilities; physical
in engineering curricula [9], and may be used to meet space and organization; and student assessment and
requirements posed by professional contexts [18]. evaluation process.
These requirements simultaneously integrate tech- The shift to PBL arise following some expecta-
nical and transversal competences in order to solve tions [29, 33]: decrease dropout rates; to stimulate
engineering problems. The current requirements for motivation for learning; to enhance the institutional
the engineering profession requires engineers to profile; and to promote the development of new
increasingly demonstrate competences that go skills. The authors highlighted that the extent of this
beyond the technical know-how of their profession change sometimes took place in a single course or, in
[19]. Some of the transversal competences required a more complex way, in several courses in an
are leadership, the ability to work in teams, com- interdisciplinary context. Powell and Weenk [10]
munication skills, entrepreneurship [20–23]. These also listed three conditions for success when shifting
competences that are not learned from lectures, in to PBL: infrastructure, authority and consensus.
which the teacher just lectures students on steps that The ‘‘infrastructure’’ dimension involves facilities,
must be taken to carry them out. A competence is teacher training, and communication. The latter
developed through meaningful learning experiences establishes a common basis regarding the percep-
[1], which allow the student to develop and mobilize tion of and the need for change. Authority is needed
them before actually putting it to the test in a to promote adequate planning, guidance and pro-
professional environment [24, 25]. gression to ensure implementation is accepted and
Project-Based Learning (PBL), among other institutionalized. Sharing of information and
active learning strategies, is one of the most studied experiences, and the commitment and vision of
and important strategies [26] used to promote learn- teachers with a focus on student learning ascribe a
ing in engineering schools, and has been studied for bottom-up characteristic to the curricular project.
some time [27]. Since design is one of the most Lastly, consensus facilitates the identification of
important characteristics of Engineering, PBL and crucial problems for the success of PBL, with the
its variants have been largely used in engineering inclusion of stakeholders in the innovation process.
curricula. In PBL, teams of students cooperate in an ‘‘Cooperation between the teachers involved in PBL
interdisciplinary context, developing competences is just as essential as cooperation between students
required in the labor market [18]. Experience has in their team’’ [10].
shown that when these strategies are used in the The faculty, school management, and limitations
classroom [9, 28], students are more involved and to school infrastructure shape the solution adopted
motivated to learn, assuring the development of the for each curriculum proposal, constituting context
new competences [29]. The main principle of PBL is and input, as discussed by Fernandes et al. [8].
student engagement, the resolution of open pro- Besterfield-Sacre et al [34], analyzing data from a
blems in an interdisciplinary setting, and active wide survey with faculty, chairs, and deans regard-
interaction with the object of learning, generally in ing change in engineering education, noted that
teams [28, 30]. A problem is the starting point of a ‘‘many of the strategies and values of engineering
project, and it is up to the students to engage in faculty and administrators’’ converge into cate-
search for a solution. Sometimes there are prede- gories that favor change. These are:
fined milestones in which students need to carry out
 Curriculum and pedagogy, which inform indivi-
tasks and show learning improvement. In PBL,
duals on new teaching concepts and practices
teachers also have to develop other communication
encouraging their use.
skills and teaching strategies, shifting away from
 Policy to develop new environmental features
those of a traditional classroom. They need to
that are required, or to encourage new teaching
assume other roles as tutors, mentors, and super-
concepts and practices.
visors, helping students build their knowledge [31].
 Reflective teachers who encourage and support
Kolmos [28] classifies different types of PBL:
individuals in developing new teaching concepts
Assignment-based project—projects as part of a
and practices.
course; Subject Project—projects based on an
 Shared vision, which empowers and supports
entire course; Problem project—design by open
stakeholders to collectively develop environmen-
problems—characterized by a problem and the
tal features that foster new teaching concepts and
development of a learning process that goes
practices.
beyond disciplinary boundaries. Kolmos, De
Graaff and Du [32] present a detailed analysis of Also in this survey [34], teachers said they were
PBL approaches involving seven dimensions: goals aware of the learning opportunities provided by
and knowledge; types of problem, projects and workshops and teaching and learning centers.
classes; progression, amplitude and duration; stu- They would be able to promote better use of new
1132 Octavio Mattasoglio Neto et al.

teaching skills to work with new curricular propo- change. The third step focused on the group of
sals and better promote student’s learning. teachers who proposed the specific activities
included in the curricular change in order to deter-
3. Methodology mine the aims of these activities, their relation with
the elements of the curriculum, and their overall
This is a longitudinal exploratory study with data perception of the curricular change. Lastly, the
collected before, during, and at the end of the fourth step focused on students and teachers to
implementation of a curricular change, using data determine their perceptions regarding the imple-
from participants of this process: teachers, man- mentation of the specific activities in the program.
agers and students, to triangulate outcomes. The The specific activities included in the curricular
aim of this study was to analyze and evaluate the change will be henceforth called PAEs (in Portu-
construction a curricular change during the first guese, ‘‘Projetos e Atividades Especiais’’). More
year of its implementation. Specifically, the objec- details on the PAEs will be given in the next section.
tive was to understand the influence of proponents The data were collected over an 18-month period,
of curricular change and of proponents of different from July to December of the following year, and
pedagogical approaches, managers and teachers are represented in this study as Month 1 (M1) to
respectively, regarding the change and their influ- Month 18 (M18). M9 was the month the curricular
ence from the idealized curriculum up to the for- change for students was implemented, and was also
malized curriculum. the beginning of the first semester of the academic
The study of curricular change needs to be year. The interviews were audio recorded with the
accompanied during a period that depends on the consent of the interviewees and transcribed to allow
range to analyze. In this study, the option was to accurate analysis of the information. The students
start at idealization up to the curricular operatio- answered the questionnaires in the school labs,
nalization, what represented 18 months. In addi- totaling 694 and 626 in the first and second semester,
tion, the choice for qualitative or quantitative data respectively. All steps of the research are synthetized
depends on the type of analysis to be performed. In in the Table 1
this study, the option was for a case study using a
qualitative approach, conducted during the first 4. Structure of the new curriculum
year of implementation of the curricular change,
also using data collected before the implementation. The Mauá Institute of Technology is a traditional
Considering that the objective was to understand engineering school in Brazil, which has offered
the way the curriculum was constructed, it became traditional and teacher-centered approach courses
necessary to gather the views of the involved stake- for more than 55 years. At the time of this study,
holders, managers, teachers and students to better nine different engineering undergraduate programs
interpret their perceptions regarding this curricular were being offered. Students complete the program
change. in five academic years. In the first two years,
The research questions defined in the scope of this students take basic courses common to all pro-
study were: What types of approach were proposed grams, and in the final three they focus on engineer-
and carried out with students? What was the role of ing. Since its foundation, this may be the
the proponents of specific activities in the develop- institution’s most profound curricular change ever
ment of the idealized curriculum? Regarding tea- promoted, particularly by introducing PAEs in the
chers’ and students’ roles in the process of learning, curriculum.
what changes took place between the idealized The motivation for the curriculum change was to
curriculum to the formalized curriculum? What provide students with engineering content and prac-
was the contribution of the specific activities to tice right from the beginning of the program, with
students’ learning? Was there a consensus among the use of the large number of laboratories available
teachers, and among those teachers and the propo- at the school. This complied with the National
nents of curricular changes, regarding specific Curricular Guidelines [11], which calls for the
points of the new proposal? promotion of learning in different contexts,
The data were collected through individual inter- beyond the classroom. The enhancement on project
views, focus groups and questionnaires in four development was also a reason, so as to present
steps. The first step took place before the announce- students with engineering challenges from the
ment of the curricular change, and aimed at deter- beginning of program, as highlighted by an inter-
mining teachers’ perceptions regarding PBL. The viewee [Step 2] who stated that the change in mind-
second focused on the managers who proposed the set was the most important aspect of this experience,
curricular change, the aim being to know the for replacing traditional classroom hours by other
motivation and expectation of the curricular types of engineering learning activities. Visits to
Changing an Engineering Curriculum through a Co-Construction Process: A Case Study 1133

Table 1. Steps of the research methodology

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Who? Teachers of the school. Dean and coordinator – Teachers who propose new Teachers and students during
Proponents of curricular pedagogical activities – and after the 1st year of new
change – who propose the PAEs. curriculum.
ideas and implement the new
curriculum, respectively.

When? Before the new During curriculum At the beginning of new In the middle and the end of
curriculum. idealization. curriculum implementation. one year of new curriculum
implementation.

July (M1) November (M5) and April (M10) August (M14), November
February (M8) (M17), and December (M18).

How was it done? Individual semi- Individual semi-structured Semi-structured focus group. Teachers: Focus groups,
structured interviews. interviews. individual interviews.
Students: questionnaires.

How many 7 teachers 2 managers 8 teacher proponents of 12 teachers – interviewed

participants? PAEs in two focus groups – 694 students – end of 1st sem.
four participants in each. 626 students – end of 2nd
sem.

What to know? Perception and Motivation and point of view Objectives, expectations, Perception of students and
knowledge of teachers of proponents of curricular motivation and point of view teachers after each semester.
regarding PBL. change. of proponents of the PAEs.

What is PBL? Is it Why change? How to What do PAEs bring new to What about the PAE
possible to use it in change? Which the curriculum? implementation process:
school programs? improvements could the new What to expect from students objectives, role of students,
approaches bring to the and teachers? role of teachers, evaluation of
course? Is extra learning: their contribution?
infrastructure needed?

engineering schools by school board members of periods. Table 3 shows the initial criteria used to
also helped to believe in the effectiveness of the classify the Projects, Engineering Practices and
initiative. All this supports the idealization of curri- Workshops, and the period for each type of peda-
cular change [17], and the development of guidelines gogical approach. The proposing teacher was
for curricular change. responsible for establishing the PAE period.
Initially, specific traditional classes were replaced At the beginning of the first academic year, all
by PAEs, which were designed by teachers who were students are required to sign up for PAEs. The
free to make proposals involving a wide variety of weekly workload of any PAE is 2 hours, organized
subjects and pedagogical strategies. To better orga- in a schedule that tried to match the interest of
nize the curriculum, all PAEs were grouped in a students and the availability of the teachers.
course. When enrolling in this course, students During an academic year, students need to sign
select the specific Projects, Engineering Practices up for at least one Project, and a total of three
and Workshops they would like to take from a list Engineering Practices and Workshops: one or two
of 38 options. Table 2 shows the previous and Workshops, and complementary Engineering
current curricular course load for the first academic Practices. As a rule, the maximum number of
year, with the inclusion of PAEs. students per group in a PAE is 30, but the propos-
With the formalizing of the curriculum [17], the ing teacher could determine the exact number of
PAEs were classified into three different types: participants.
Projects, Engineering Practices and Workshops, All PAEs were designed according to the same
according to different pedagogical approaches and general guidelines, established at the formalization

Table 2. Organization of hours in the previous and new curriculum, in the first academic year of each program

Vector & Algorithms Introduction Total PAE

Analytic and Pro- Technical to Engineer- (classes + Meetings/
Curriculum Physics Chemistry Calculus Geometry gramming Drawing ing labs) / week week

Previous 4C+2L 2C+2L 6C 4C 2L 2L 4L 28 0

New 4C+2L 2C+2L 4C 2C 2L 2L 2L 22 6

C = Class hours; L = Laboratory hours.

1134 Octavio Mattasoglio Neto et al.

Table 3. Initial criteria used to classify the PAEs

Pedagogical approach Initial classification Period

Projects Directly related to engineering one academic period – 8 months

Engineering Practices Directly related to engineering half academic period – 4 months

Workshops Not directly related to engineering. To develop skills and half academic period – 4 months
knowledge, or to promote general background of other areas
of knowledge

Table 4. Projects, Engineering Practices, and Workshops offered to students in the first year

Projects - Period of 8 months Engineering Practices – Period of 4 months Workshops – Period of 4 months

PRO 101 – Jam Manufacturing PRO 701 – Fuel injection PRO 401 – Mathematical bases
PRO 102 – Autonomous robot PRO 702 – Spaghetti Bridge PRO 402 – Graphics
PRO 103 – Flying over the campus PRO 703 – Aerodynamics of buildings PRO 403 – Competitive Brazil
PRO 104 – Water treatment PRO 704 – Lean production PRO 404 – Entering by cone
PRO 105 – Industrial shed PRO 705 – Sustainable City PRO 405 – The Logic of games
PRO 106 – Electronic games PRO 706 – Chips Fruits PRO 406 – Knowing LINUX
PRO 107 – Soap manufacturing PRO 707 – ‘‘Houston, we have . . . PRO 407 – The art of solving problems
PRO 108 – Weather station PRO 708 – Mobile applications PRO 409 – Modern physics
PRO 109 – Waterway PRO 709 – Rocket Science PRO 410 – Creating problems
PRO 110 – Skateboard factory PRO 711 – Master user PRO 411 – Negotiation
PRO 111 – Combustion engine PRO 712 – Engineer Stirling PRO 412 – Excel-VBA
PRO 713 – Corrosion PRO 413 – Python
PRO 714 – Tensile/Compression PRO 415 – Newton in equilibrium
PRO 715 – Arduino

level: activities should be carried out at the school students revealed four relevant dimensions used to
with active participation of students; should not discuss the implementation of the new curriculum.
necessarily be associated with any course of the These dimensions were the construction of new
program; and no requirement of formal assessment curricular structure with the features of the three
of students’ learning. On the one hand, these guide- different pedagogical approaches; the role of the
lines established certain rigidity; on the other, the teachers; the role of students and; the contribution
opportunity and flexibility for teachers to freely of PAEs to student learning.
design a variety of projects was an opportunity to
encourage creativity. Approximately sixty teachers 5.1 Constructing the meaning of the PAEs
from different academic years and different areas From the interviews with teachers who proposed the
submitted almost one hundred proposals for PAEs. PAEs [Step 3], it was possible to attribute different
Thirty-eight of these proposals were chosen to meanings to the various pedagogical approaches.
comprise the list of PAEs offered to students of Projects, Engineering Practices and Workshops
the first academic year (Table 4), considering the were thus defined:
following criteria: interest and feasibility for the
engineering program. Projects—Are divided into stages, and are related to
an open and multidisciplinary problem, in accor-
5. Top-down and bottom-up co-
construction of curricular changes
The curricular change was determined through an
institutional top-down process, which guaranteed
the authority required to support the process [10].
However, in the formalization and operationaliza-
tion stages of the new curriculum, a great deal of
freedom was allowed regarding pedagogical details,
allowing teachers to provide input in a bottom-up
contribution, as seen in Fig. 1. This section aims to
show how teachers influenced this construction as
agents of change.
The analysis of the data from the proponents of
curricular change, the proponents of PAEs, and the Fig. 1. Top-down and bottom-up curricular co-construction.
Changing an Engineering Curriculum through a Co-Construction Process: A Case Study 1135

dance with Kolmos [28]. For these teachers, open work to the students. Generally, this begins and
problems are those that may be solved in a variety of ends in a single class [Focus group 2, teachers 1, 2
ways, or that use a variety of tools in the solution. In and 4] and may have involve direct interaction, with
the words of one interviewee. the handling of parts, equipment or tools, or instal-
‘‘[Project] . . . is something bigger, in which I need more
ling or building a prototype. It may also be used to
resources, different types of knowledge from specific promote the development of pencil and paper activ-
engineering areas, in my case, automation control . . . I ities. An example is ‘‘Mathematics bases’’, which
have to do research, I have to see how it works (the aims to develop mathematical skills which the
software, the mechanism) . . .’’ [FG2P4—Focus Group students find difficulty.
2, teacher 4].
‘‘I think a workshop has content to be addressed, but
For those interviewed, Projects required a working without the need of creating a product as a project, but of
strategy, which required team organization, defin- gaining knowledge on certain content’’ [FG1T2—Focus
ing the roles of participants, identifying the pro- Group 1, teacher 2].
blem, and defining the steps for the solution. In summary, Engineering Practices are associated
Content needed to be presented by the teacher to with the application of an engineering tool without
support the work of the teams. Students needed to the involvement of many variables nor the design of
conduct research to support problem solving pro- large complex projects. In this case, problems are
cess, to search for a solution, to develop and test a not an open problem. In turn, Projects are asso-
prototype, and finally, to make an oral or written ciated with open and multidisciplinary problems
presentation of the results. whose solution is unknown, and are developed in
stages. Workshops are associated with the develop-
Engineering Practices—For some interviewees, ment of specific technical, scientific or transversal
Engineering Practices, unlike Projects, do not competences, to support engineering background
require initial research to define and find the solu- and to broaden knowledge.
tion to a problem. Teachers directly present both the At end of the academic year [step 4], it was
content and the problem, and students work directly possible to realize that some teachers still assigned
on a solution. different meanings to these pedagogical
‘‘The student will carry out a proposal that is already half approaches. For example, Engineering Practices
set by the teacher. The specific objective is set by the and Projects were perceived as having the same
teacher’’ [FG2T1]. features. That is, after one academic year there
‘‘. . . the student can give his or her solution, but it’s very was still no consensus regarding the features of
controlled, with the teacher controlling the process to
these pedagogical approaches and different teachers
reach a specific goal also set by the teacher’’ [FG2T2].
assigned different objectives to the same type of
There are also those who identify Engineering pedagogical approach. According to Powell and
Practices as open mini-projects, only because they Weenk [10], consensus is a basic condition to imple-
have a shorter development period, not requiring ment PBL and, the lack of a consensus regarding the
much initial research in technical articles [FG2T3]. role of each PAE certainly hinders uniform work.
It is possible to conclude that, in Engineering For the students [Step 4], each pedagogical
Practices, the goal is to develop engineering compe- approach, or different type of PAE, followed
tences such as on laboratory work, focusing on different pedagogical strategies, which are shown
implementing a process or building a product in Table 5. In Workshops, meetings to solve exer-
directly, with less autonomy to fully develop student cises predominated, followed by lectures. In Engi-
creativity. neering Practices, laboratory classes and projects
were more frequent. In Projects, as expected, the
Workshops—The aim is essentially to have students students identified the predominance of projects,
develop competences in workshops structured in followed by Laboratories and Lectures. It is inter-
two stages: first, a theoretical presentation of spe- esting to notice that meetings to solve exercises in
cific content is given by the teacher, and in the Engineering Practices was not a significant option.
second, the teacher proposes specific supervised The predominance of two pedagogical

Table 5. Different pedagogical strategies used in the PAEs (%) from the student perspective

Resolution Student Case

Lectures of exercises Laboratories seminars studies Games Projects

Workshops 22 36 9 3 14 2 14
Engineering Practice 18 5 24 12 10 8 23
Projects 21 2 24 12 6 1 34
1136 Octavio Mattasoglio Neto et al.

approaches for Engineering Practices, ‘‘Labora- autonomy. As the curriculum reform progressed,
tories’’ and ‘‘Projects’’ confirmed the mixed views teachers became more aware of the new compe-
teachers also had regarding these types of PAEs. tences that needed to be set in motion when working
Student perceptions showed they would either be with students.
working on a project or conducting laboratory Teachers’ roles were defined differently according
sessions. Analyzing teachers’ perceptions [Step 4], to each PAE pedagogical approach. In Projects, the
it was possible to conclude that the small number of teacher role was viewed predominantly as that of a
students in the groups, as determined by the teacher, team coach, helping students assume their roles,
favored the process of putting active learning stra- carry out the tasks, and engage in good interperso-
tegies into practice, providing more individualized nal relationships. In Engineering Practices, the
attention to the students. It is interesting to notice teacher was perceived predominantly as a role
that Lectures appear in all approaches, indicating model, an example to be followed by students. In
that teachers continue giving classes in a traditional Workshops, they were regarded as tutors, as some-
manner. one who supported efforts, respecting the different
In the idealization stage of the new curriculum, student profiles. In all these roles, there was the idea
the desire to include practical projects in the curri- of developing autonomy in the student.
culum was mentioned. The concept of Projects, It was possible to determine two different dimen-
Engineering Practices and Workshops appeared in sions associated with teacher roles. One was opera-
the formalization phase, when these different peda- tional, related to carrying out PAEs, making them
gogical strategies were originally defined. Only in happen. Another was related to the pedagogical
the operationalization stage were these approaches dimension, determined by the different demands
better defined by the proponent teachers, who of each PAE approach.
played an important role in this characterization.
5.3 The students’ roles
5.2 The Teachers’ roles The reason to implement a new curriculum and the
A positive aspect regarding teachers in the curricu- PAEs, as revealed by the proponents of curricular
lar change was their acceptance of the challenge to changes [Step 2], was to help students be better
develop PAEs and the willingness to learn [Teacher ‘‘prepared to accept challenges’’, be involved in the
4; Step 4]. ‘‘Developing PAE was pretty cool. Tea- ‘‘solution of open problems and projects’’, and to
chers devote time because these are subjects that he ‘‘practice engineering by working in teams’’. In addi-
likes’’. This statement met the expectation of the tion, PAEs were expected to bring students closer to
proponents of the curricular change [Step 2], as its laboratories and companies, right from the begin-
possible to realize from the statement ‘‘the curricular ning of the first academic period of the engineering
reform aimed at broadening the teacher’s exercise of program. There was no specific indication as to
his or her competences’’. It shows a convergence which transversal competences were to be devel-
between the school board’s intention and the oped with the PAEs.
action of teachers who had the opportunity of At the initial phase of implementation of the
putting their competences into practice. curriculum change, it was possible to gain a per-
In the previous stage of the curricular change, spective of student roles, from the teachers’ point of
when discussing PBL [Step 1], teachers assigned view [Step 3]. Students would be able to ‘‘make
themselves different roles that may be regarded as choices’’, ‘‘take decisions’’, ‘‘solve problems’’, ‘‘con-
a facilitators of the learning process [35]. duct research’’, ‘‘carry out the practices proposed by
the teacher,’’ and ‘‘have a proactive attitude’’. These
‘‘. . . (teacher) tries to make students question themselves are more specific contributions that PAEs may have
and search for solutions to the problem.’’ [Teacher 1]. towards enhancing student competences.
‘‘. . . because of the greater proximity to the student who At the end of the academic year, the evaluation of
is responsible for learning.’’ [Teacher 2]. student involvement, done by teachers [step 4],
‘‘. . . to say the work did not end as soon as the student got brought contrasting perceptions. Some teachers
the result in the calculator, and then ask ’what is this? Is it
important? Why did you use that?’ He must be orien-
indicated a negative point of view, arguing that
tated.’’ [Teacher 3]. while the teacher accepted the challenge of creating
something new, the students did not embrace the
These teacher roles were confirmed and further opportunity to face the challenge. For these tea-
detailed by proponents of the PAEs [Step 3]. They chers, students understood the work proposed more
indicated a refinement of conceptions regarding the as a task to be fulfilled in order to earn the credits,
role of the teacher. According to them, teachers’ instead of an opportunity to develop additional
roles were: advisor, tutor, model, content provider, competences. As stated by an interviewee the
and team coach [31], always promoting student ‘‘PAE was very nice, but students showed little
Changing an Engineering Curriculum through a Co-Construction Process: A Case Study 1137

interest. Most of the students chose PAEs because of 5.4 Results—contribution of projects, engineering
the schedule. Sometimes it seemed that some teams practices, and workshops
were totally lost.’’ [Teacher 10, step 4]. The proponents of the new curriculum [Step 2]
In contrast, there were certain positive indica- expected the PAEs to make the students more
tions of the involvement of autonomous and moti- active, committed, dedicated and effective team
vated students. ‘‘In the laboratory tasks, the students players. For the teachers proposing the PAEs
stayed longer, even after established working hours, [Step 3], the greatest merit was to highlight engineer-
without complaints.’’ [Teacher 8, step 4]. According ing function during the learning process, to use
to Teacher 11 [Step 4], the students at times ‘‘were course content in problem-solving activities, and
excited, surprised, and impressed with their achieve- to encourage students to assume responsibility for
ment, their own abilities. They worked at their own their own learning in a context freedom.
pace’’. At the end of the academic year [Step 4], teachers
Developing new competences and broadening perceived student participation in PAEs differently.
experiences to bring students closer to actual engi- As pointed out by teachers ‘‘the cultural gain went
neering practices were envisioned during curricu- beyond engineering, for example astronomy’’ [Tea-
lum idealization, but it was not clear how this could cher 4, step 4]. Regarding the development of
be performed in the curriculum formalization stage. competences, teacher 8 referred to certain gains in
Proponents of curriculum change focused on the teamwork and critical judgement: ‘‘teamwork, the
structural curriculum changes: the focus was to ‘‘set attitudes in the presentation of results, and the ability
the program in motion’’. In turn, teachers who to compare results between teams. They also noticed
proposed PAEs were those who defined the compe- limited Internet information due to low technical
tences students needed to develop in a more precise content’’ [Teacher 8, step 4].
manner. Interviews [Step 3] indicated that PAEs Some teachers stated that the PAEs should have
could help students develop transversal compe- had a stronger and more explicit connection with
tences. the program’s courses, addressing content such as
The development of transversal competences was physics, mathematics, and others, reinforcing their
perceived as the main contribution of the PAEs. importance [Teacher 6, step 4]. ‘‘The gap between
However, the organizational issues of putting the PAEs and the courses ended up generating more
new curriculum into practice seemed more impor- difficulty, contrary to what an interdisciplinary pro-
tant, impairing all its learning potential during ject was expected to provide. PAEs and the program
implementation. courses ended up being two separate things’’ [Teacher

Fig. 2. Transversal competences developed in the PAEs (%), from the student perspective. Note: Students could choose more than
one option.
1138 Octavio Mattasoglio Neto et al.

7, step 4]. The analysis of teacher interviews showed ing to leave their mark in construction of the
a marked contribution of the PAEs towards the curriculum, as was envisioned in the curricular
development of transversal competences, but this formalization stage. Although the full transversal
lacked a connection with the courses of the pro- competence development potential, was not fully
gram. realized in this first year, teachers became aware of
Results demonstrated that PAE objectives the role they should play in guiding and supporting
diverged. While the proponents of curricular students’ work to achieve these skills. The transmis-
changes requested transversal competences, some sion of content was perceived as more important
teachers [Step 4] showed the need to link PAEs with than the development of competences, but the
the courses of the program. importance of soft skills was recognized by teachers
Students shared the same point of view, pointing in the training of students.
out that course content should be a strong point of From the teachers’ point of view, the students did
the PAEs. ‘‘Knowing, practicing, and having contact not have the desired level of awareness of the
with’’ engineering knowledge was the aspect most importance of the new approaches in their training,
valued by the students. They attributed less impor- and regarded the PAEs as tasks to be fulfilled in
tance to learning transversal competences. In addi- order to obtain a passing grade, instead of being
tion, they pointed out that participation in PAEs perceived as learning spaces for the development of
took time and represented additional student work competences. Both teachers and students stated that
[Step 4]. the PAEs should be more closely connected to
Despite these statements, students highlighted course content. This indicates that the idealized
certain transversal competences developed in the curriculum has not yet developed an identity with
PAEs, especially in the Projects: ‘‘Teamwork’’, regard to operationalization.
‘‘Organization and planning’’, ‘‘Problem solving abil- Better communication with the students regard-
ity’’, ‘‘Ability to innovate’’ and ‘‘Ability to deal with ing the objectives of the PAEs, clarifying their
the unexpected ’’. Figure 2 shows, from the view of contribution to the development of competences,
the students, the transversal competences developed is required. In addition to the authority, infrastruc-
in the PAEs. ture and consensus needed to promote change
In general, the students were able to fulfill PAE among teachers, effective communication is also
requirements and obtain a passing grade but, over- necessary to increase awareness and to ensure the
all, teachers felt that there was not enough percep- involvement of students in a new curriculum that
tion of the importance of PAEs in their training. values competences.
The analysis of the results shows the need to This study revealed that curriculum change is a
improve the connection between PAEs and the co-constructed process, requiring the alignment and
courses that run in parallel. This connection could contribution of all stakeholders involved: leaders,
increase the sense of meaning for both, the courses teachers, and students. This co-construction of the
and the PAEs, thus increasing motivation and engineering curriculum is an ongoing process aimed
engagement of the students. at continuous innovation.

Acknowledgments—The authors would like to thank all teachers

6. Conclusions and students who kindly participated in this research. This work
has been supported by FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e
The top-down decision by the school board pro- Tecnologia (Portugal) within the project scope UID/CEC/
vided the authority to ensure the implementation of 00319/2019.
the new curriculum. A bottom-up contribution by
the proponents of the PAEs, defining their structure References
and detailing the role of teachers and students,
guaranteed the co-construction of the curriculum. 1. M. Christie and E. de Graaff, The philosophical and peda-
gogical underpinnings of active learning in engineering
The top-down initiative supported the changes and education, European Journal of Engineering Education,
promoted the involvement of teachers, and the 42(1), pp 5–16, 2017.
bottom-up initiative developed the curriculum. 2. M. Frenay, B. Galand, E. Milgrom and B. Raucent, Project-
and Problem Based Learning in the Engineering Curriculum
As the curricular change was outlined in a non- at the University of Louvain. In: A. Kolmos, E. De Graaff,
directive way, it was possible to open space to the Management of change: Implementation of problem-based and
contributions and influence of teachers in the curri- project-based learning in engineering, Sense Publishers, Rot-
terdam, pp. 169–180, 2007.
culum formalizing phase. The three types of 3. J. M. N. de Oliveira, Project-Based Learning in Engineering:
approach, Projects, Engineering Practices and The Águeda Experience. In: A. Kolmos, E. De Graaff,
Workshops, initially defined in an open way, were Management of change: Implementation of problem-based
and project-based learning in engineering, Sense Publishers,
over time defined in a more specific way by teachers, Rotterdam, pp. 169–180, 2007.
reflecting the commitment to the challenge, allow- 4. M-J. Terrón-López, M-J. Garcı́a-Garcı́a, P-J. Velasco-Quin-
Changing an Engineering Curriculum through a Co-Construction Process: A Case Study 1139

tana, J. Ocampo, M-R. V. Montaño and M-C. Gaya-López, 20. L. Pascail, The emergence of the skills approach in industry
Implementation of a project-based engineering school: and its consequences for the training of engineers, European
increasing student motivation and relevant learning, Eur- Journal of Engineering Education, 31(1), pp. 55–61, 2006.
opean Journal of Engineering Education, 2016. ISSN 1469- 21. H. J. Passow, Which ABET Competencies Do Engineering
5898 (Online). Graduates Find Most Important in their Work? Journal of
5. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual, Prentice-Hall, Engineering Education, 101(1), pp. 95–118, 2012.
Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997. 22. G. Mason, G. Williams and S. Cranmer, Employability skills
6. J. Bergmann, A. Sans, Flip your classroom: reach every initiatives in higher education: what effects do they have on
student in every class every day, LTC, São Paulo, 2016. graduate labor market outcomes? Education Economics,
ISBN 978-85-216-3045-6. 17(1), pp. 1–30, 2009.
7. V. Najdanovic-Visak, Team-based learning for first year 23. R. M. Lima, J. Dinis-Carvalho, R. M. Sousa, P. M. Arezes
engineering students, Education for Chemical Engineers, and D. Mesquita, Development of Competences while sol-
(18), pp. 26–34, 2017. ving real industrial interdisciplinary problems: a successful
8. S. Fernandes, M. A. Flores and R. M. Lima, Using CIPP cooperation with industry, Production Journal, 27(spe), pp.
model to evaluate the impact of Project-Led Education: A 1–14, 2017b.
case study of Engineering Education in Portugal. In: A. 24. G. Le Boterf, De la compétence à la navigation professiionelle,
Kolmos, E. De Graaff, X. Du, Research on PBL practice in Les Éditions d’ Organisation Paris, 1997.
engineering education, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, 2009. 25. P. Zarifian, Objetivo Competência. Por uma nova lógica.
pp. 45–55. Editora Atlas, São Paulo, 2001.
9. R. M. Lima, J. Dinis-Carvalho, R. M. Sousa, A. C. Alves, 26. R. M. Lima, P. H. Andersson and E. Saalman, Active
F. Moreira, S. Fernandes and D. Mesquita, Ten Years of Learning in Engineering Education: a (re)introduction,
Project-Based Learning (PBL) in Industrial Engineering European Journal of Engineering Education, 42(1), pp. 1–4,
and Management at the University of Minho In A. 2017.
Guerra, R. Ulseth, A. Kolmos (Eds.), PBL in Engineering 27. E. De Graaff and A. Kolmos, Characteristics of Problem-
Education: International Perspectives on Curriculum Change, Based Learning, International Journal of Engineering Educa-
Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 33–52, tion, 5(19), pp. 657–662, 2003.
2017a. 28. A. Kolmos, Reflections on Project Work and Problem-
10. P. C. Powell and W. Weenk, Project-led engineering educa- based. Learning. European Journal of Engineering Education,
tion. Lemma, Utrecht, 2003. 21(2), pp. 141–148, 1996.
11. MEC—Ministério da Educação e Cultura. Conselho Nacio- 29. A. Kolmos and E. De Graaff, Processing of changing to PBL.
nal de Educação. Câmara de Educação Superior. Diretrizes In: A. Kolmos, E. De Graaff. Management of change:
Curriculares para os cursos de engenharia. Resolução CNE/ Implementation of problem-based and project-based learning
CES no 11, de 11 de março de 2002. in engineering. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp. 31–43, 2007.
12. ABENGE—Proposta de parecer e de resolução para as 30. A. L. Aquere, D. Mesquita, R. M. Lima, S. B. S. Monteiro
DCNs Engenharia. http://www.abenge.org.br/file/Minuta% and M. Zindel, Coordination of Student Teams focused on
20Parecer%20DCNs_07%2003%202018.pdf Accessed 04 Project Management Processes, International Journal of
March 2019. Engineering Education, 28(4), pp. 859–870, 2012.
13. D. E. Goldberg and M. Somerville, A Whole New Engineer: 31. W. H. W. Muhd Zin, A. Williams and W. Sher, Introducing
the coming revolution in engineering educativo, ThreeJoy PBL in engineering education: challenges lecturers and
Associates, 2014. students confront, International Journal of Engineering Edu-
14. R. Barnett and K. Coate, Engaging the Curriculum in Higher cation, 33(3), pp. 974–983, 2017.
Education. Maidenhead: Open University Press / Society for 32. A. Kolmos, E. De Graaff and X. Du, Diversity of PBL—PBL
Research Into Higher Education, 2005. Learning principles and models. In: A. Kolmos, E. De Graaff
15. P. Wolf, A model for facilitating curriculum development in and X. Du, Research on PBL practice in engineering educa-
higher education: A faculty-driven, data-informed, and tion, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp. 9–21, 2009.
educational developer–supported approach. New Directions 33. A. Guerra, R. Ulseth and A. Kolmos, PBL in Engineering
for Teaching and Learning, (112), pp. 15–20, 2007. Education—International Perspectives on Curriculum
16. J. A. Pacheco, Escritos curriculares. Cortez, São Paulo, p. Change, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 2017.
176, 2005. 34. M. Besterfield-Sacre, M. F. Cox, M. Borrego, K. Beddoes
17. J. Goodlad, Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum and J. Zhu, Changing Engineering Education: Views of U.S.
practice, McGraw–Hill, New York, 1979. Faculty, Chairs, and Deans, Journal of Engineering Educa-
18. D. Mesquita, R. M. Lima and M. A. Flores, Developing tion, 103(2), pp 193–219, 2014.
professional competencies through projects in interaction 35. O. Mattasoglio Neto, R. M. Lima and D. Mesquita, Project-
with companies: A study in Industrial Engineering and Based Learning approach for engineering curriculum design:
Management Master Degree, 5th International Symposium the faculty perceptions of an engineering school, Proceed-
on Project Approaches in Engineering Education, PAEE’2013. ings, 8th International Symposium on Project Approaches in
Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Engineering Education. San Sebastian, Spain, 2015.
19. Engineer2020, The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering
in the New Century: The National Academies Press, 2004.

Octavio Mattasoglio Neto is Full Professor at the Mauá Institute of Technology, teaching Physics to freshman students in
the Basic Cycle, and Research Methodology in the Industrial Engineering Program. He is also President of the Academy of
Teachers, an agency that supports the Dean’s office, responsible for teacher training in educational issues and curricular
innovation, focusing on the use of innovative pedagogical strategies and technological tools. He is currently involved in
research on Active learning strategies, Project-based learning and Curricular innovation, and is interested in teacher
conceptual changes. He is Director of Communications of the Brazilian Association of Engineering Education and
member of the research committee of the STHEM Brazil Consortium - Science, Technology, Humanity, Engineering and
Mathematics. He is also editor of the International Journal on Active Learning, a journal of the STHEM Brazil
consortium.

Rui M. Lima is Associate Professor of the Department of Production and Systems and Integrated Member of
ALGORITMI Centre—Industrial Engineering and Management Research Line, Lean Production Research Group—
1140 Octavio Mattasoglio Neto et al.

of the School of Engineering of University of Minho, Portugal. His main research interests are related to Industrial
Engineering and Management fields: Production Management; Lean and Agile Project Management; Lean Services; Lean
Healthcare; Engineering Education; Project-Based Learning (PBL); University-Business Cooperation (UBC). He is
currently involved in international projects with universities of eight different countries from Europe, Asia and South
America. He has more than 150 publications in journals, conferences or book chapters, and acted as invited editor of 4
special issues in indexed journals. Rui is one of the chairs of the ‘‘International Symposium on Project Approaches in
Engineering Education’’ (PAEE) since 2009. He is the current president of the PAEE association and the current chair of
the steering committee of the Active Learning in Engineering Education—ALE network.

Diana Mesquita is currently a Research Assistant at Centro ALGORITMI, Engineering School, University of Minho. She
is also collaborating at the Research Centre on Child Studies at the same university. She has also developed consultant
activities at other organizations, namely at the Universidade Portucalense (UPT), Betweien, Lda., Bright Concept
Consulting and Deloitte Portugal. Her research interests are focused on Engineering Education, regarding curriculum
development, teachers’ training and professional development, active learning and project-based learning, assessment and
evaluation. She has strong experience in training activities (design, development and evaluation) in higher education
institutions. During her academic path, she was involved in several projects carried out in Portugal and abroad (Russia,
Tajikistan, Thailand, Chile, Brazil, and Colombia). Currently, she is a member of the organising committee of the
‘‘International Symposium on Project Approaches in Engineering Education’’ (PAEE) and Active Learning in
Engineering Education (ALE). She is also a member of the Portuguese Society for Engineering Education.