Safety Science 171 (2024) 106391

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/safety

Review

Teaching occupational health and safety in engineering using active

learning: A systematic review
Italo Rodeghiero Neto a, *, Fernando Gonçalves Amaral a
a
Industrial Engineering, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Av. Osvaldo Aranha, 99, 90035190, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) teaching within engineering is complex due to its multidisciplinary and
Student-centered teaching the difficulty of reproducing its definitions in the classroom dynamically and attractively. An alternative to
Engineering education overcome these problems is using active learning strategies since they assist in developing knowledge and
Occupational health and safety
different competencies from a different perspective than traditional ones. Therefore, this study aims to inves­
Ergonomics
tigate the Active Learning strategies used to teach OHS in engineering, showing their main characteristics and
Competencies in OHS
advantages. A Systematic Literature Review was performed with the help of the PRISMA protocol based on three
research questions. Sixty-two articles were selected for analysis, covering quantitative and qualitative analyses.
The main findings observed in this study were the three Active Learning strategies currently utilized (Problem-
based Learning, Project-based Learning, and Gamification) and the different advantages, disadvantages, and
skills developed. The results also indicate various advantages of these approaches. Finally, the other OHS subjects
were related to each strategy, enabling professionals in this field to obtain theoretical support and be incentivized
to apply active learning to improve students’ engagement and learning performance relating OHS. Concerning
the practice, it was possible to observe several limitations involving the university, such as the infrastructure for
training and the incentive for the teacher to use active learning, for example, workload and excessive admin­
istrative demands, and for the student, such as lack of commitment and resistance to change.

1. Introduction teaching strategies, centered on the teacher as the primary source of

Active Learning is a concept of approaches to practical experiences in
which the students become actively involved in the process. This
concept enables reflection on what is being learned from solving real
problems (Lima et al., 2017; Tortorella et al., 2020). Active learning is
the opposite face of expository, traditional classes and lectures. The
methodologies that cover these experiences are disseminated and
advocated by authors as one of the best ways students can acquire and
develop the knowledge needed for their future profession (Borrego et al.,
2015; Lombardi and Shipley, 2021). According to Felder et al. (2011),
methodologies that centralize learning on the student and include
frequent actions and reflections facilitate the learning process. As noted
by Crawley et al. (2007), this approach leads to a more effective
development of knowledge. Different studies have shown that active
learning leads to better student performance when compared to tradi­
tional lectures (Freeman et al., 2014; Thai et al., 2017; Colim et al.,
2022; Lorenzis et al., 2023).
Undergraduate engineering programs mostly rely on traditional
knowledge (Astolfi et al., 2016; Ahmed and Sayed, 2020; Nguyen et al.,
2020). This approach can lead to problems and limitations for future
professionals entering the job market, which should be addressed during
training. Studying teaching in these conditions provides support for
theoretical-practical concepts for applying different methodologies in
engineering courses.
Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) is a common area in most
engineering programs, characterized by its logical and precise concepts
and definitions from health and sociological fields (Zhang et al., 2018).
This field encompasses ergonomics, industrial hygiene, work psychol­
ogy, occupational safety, and human factors, which aim to ensure
workers’ psychophysiological well-being during their activities, guar­
anteeing as much protection and comfort as possible (IEA, 2021).
Additionally, other work areas can be investigated to identify waste and
issues to increase productivity without compromising professionals’
health and safety (Dul and Neumann, 2009; Kolus et al., 2018; Lanzotti
et al., 2020).“.
Knowledge and skills acquired in OHS are necessary and essential for

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: italorneto@gmail.com (I. Rodeghiero Neto), amaral@producao.ufrgs.br (F.G. Amaral).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106391
Received 16 December 2022; Received in revised form 16 November 2023; Accepted 24 November 2023
Available online 3 December 2023
0925-7535/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
I. Rodeghiero Neto and F.G. Amaral
professional engineers since they also allow a productivity gain of the
system based on understanding the worker’s physical and psychological
wellbeing (Wilson, 2014; Bolis et al., 2020). As examples of activities in
this area, we can mention analysis of the activity and work organization
(Saurin and Patriarcca, 2020), investigation of possible accidents (Behm
et al., 2014), analysis of the physical and mental workload (Dul et al.,
2012), application of performance tools, risk assessment and, control
(Menzemer et al., 2023), and the development of ergonomic products.
Thus, a professional in OHS can analyze the entire work environment
and promote improvements based on how the worker perceives it.
Nevertheless, teaching the concepts connected to OHS and their
application in a working environment is challenging. The complexity of
the field lies in the union between the concepts of practicing engineer­
ing, the company’s production needs, and the human factor of the
worker. A student needs to understand that he is responsible for the
wellbeing of the workers, seeking to solve problems to reduce, for
instance, the number of work-related disorders, diseases, and accidents
(Oviedo-Trespalacios et al., 2015). Likewise, a student needs to under­
stand the importance of the company for society in whose context it
participates (SAI, 2014). Exposing this student to different active
learning strategies may provide competencies such as social and ethical
responsibility and professional competencies (Pomales-García and Liu,
2007; Kunrath et al., 2020). However, how questions involving the
humanization of an engineering professional are instigated has not yet
been much studied. (Mazzurco and Daniel, 2020).
OHS also require creativity from the professionals in the work mar­
ket (Bodnar et al., 2016). The complex problems in this field involve the
human factor, so it becomes necessary to research and analyze the
working environment from different viewpoints. With activities and
problem-solving, realistic environments usually stimulate the student’s
creativity (Marbouti et al., 2018) and use it in decision-making for
adequate solutions for improvement. (García-Fayos et al., 2020).
In this sphere, Active Learning began to ensure that the classes would
be more attractive and challenging for the students, aiming to increase
their interest and concentration (Cerezo-Narváez et al., 2019; Lo and
Hew, 2019). On the other hand, few studies in the field of education in
engineering show that Active Learning could be used to teach concepts
of OHS (Astolfi et al., 2016). Thus, teaching OHS within engineering also
becomes a challenge, making evident the need for a review of the
methods used for teaching so that they become increasingly attractive
and reliable. Due to this gap in the literature, teachers and tutors do not
feel comfortable and secure in applying these strategies since they do not
know their advantages and limitations. For this reason, teaching lags
increasingly behind and is distant from the way the other fields of en­
gineering are taught (Din and Gibson, 2019).
Therefore, the objective of this study is to investigate the Active
Learning strategies used to teach OHS in engineering, showing their
main characteristics and advantages. For this purpose, a systematic re­
view of the literature was performed in order to answer the following
research question: What are the Active Learning strategies most recom­
mended for use in teaching OHS in working within engineering?
The research examines the approaches currently used in teaching
OHS, either exclusively or concerning other areas of engineering. This
idea justifies the present review because it shows research studies on
teaching these subjects in various engineering specialties. Moreover, it is
also explained by the absence, in the literature, of systematic reviews
that discuss concepts of Active Learning and OHS, contributing to the
academic field regarding the real situation of the combination of these
fields. For these reasons, this study aims to answer the research ques­
tions: (i) What active learning strategies are utilized in the fields related to
OHS in the engineering specialties?; (ii) What are the advantages and dis­
advantages of using each strategy? and, (iii) What competencies are the
students developing based on these strategies?
The methodology used to answer these three questions was a sys­
tematic literature review. As already reported, professionals need to
understand the methodologies of active learning that have been used
2
Safety Science 171 (2024) 106391
and its definition, their strengths and weaknesses, and what they
contribute beyond theoretical content. To achieve this, figures and ta­
bles present the results found in different analyzed articles, and, in the
end, a collective discussion with a framework allows for identifying
different active teaching strategies for OHS topics.
2. Methodology
A Systematic Review of Literature (SRL) methodology allows the
investigation of concepts and data that have already been published in
the literature on a given field, answering a set of pre-established ques­
tions and evaluating the authenticity of the researched information
(Linde and Willich, 2003; Tranfield et al., 2003; Becheikh et al., 2006).
This methodology, performed through peer review, ensures impartiality
in choosing the articles to be analyzed based on its step-by-step protocol
and prevention of interferences throughout the process (Liberati et al.,
2009; Hallinger, 2013). Before performing this systematic review, a
preliminary stage of an exploratory review was developed to understand
the terms utilized in the international literature.
The PRISMA Statement 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Sys­
tematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) was used to guide research, help­
ing to choose, analyze and organize the articles to be selected (Page
et al., 2021). This protocol is conducted and systematized by different
stages, and it helps the researchers to follow the propositions charac­
teristic of a systematic review. It includes authenticity and impartiality
based on the three steps – identification, screening, and inclusion. It is
possible to ensure a complete and transparent review with the help of
PRISMA, contemplating various studies in the field (Moher et al., 2009).
Besides PRISMA, the State of Art through Systematic Review - StArt
(LAPES, 2018) software was used, containing the stages described by the
protocol to improve and systematize the organization of the articles.
The methodological procedure was realized based on PRISMA
Statement 2020 and divided into five steps: (i) question formulation, (ii)
locating studies, (iii) study selections and evaluation, (iv) analysis and syn­
thesis, and v) reporting and using the results.
2.1. Step 01: Question formulation
The development of the general research question and the questions
to be answered by the articles collected was based on the PICO model
(Population - P, Intervention - I, Control - C, Outcomes - O). With these four
words, the framework enables the development of a more appropriate
question, avoiding unnecessary research, allowing focusing on the scope
of the study, and maximizing the collection of the desired data (Santos
et al., 2007; Castellucci et al., 2020).
More extensively than mentioned in the introduction, the research
question is: Regarding the engineering undergraduate students (P), what
are the types of Active Learning (I) most recommended for use (C) to
improve the teaching of OHS in engineering programs (O)? Besides the
main question, other supplementary questions were formulated to help
select and collect the articles and analyze the data obtained by this
systematic review:
i. What active learning strategies are utilized in the fields related to
OHS in the engineering specialties?
ii. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using each
strategy?
iii. What competencies are the students developing based on these
strategies?
2.2. Step 02: Locating studies
Articles were collected in four different periodical bases to answer
the previously mentioned questions. This choice was based on the topics
approached by the research study to cover the most significant number
of important articles in each base and the areas covered: Scopus, Science
I. Rodeghiero Neto and F.G. Amaral Safety Science 171 (2024) 106391

Direct, and Wiley Library Online related to science, technology, and en­ Table 2
gineering, and PubMed Central, related to health. In the exploratory re­ Protocol of systematic review.
view, these bases presented an excellent representation of articles on the Stage Information
topic of this systematic review. A Boolean combination of words was
General Year of publication; authors; title; keywords; country of origin; and
used within these bases, aiming to cover the principal areas researched – data publishing journal
engineering education, OHS and, active learning, as per Table 1. The
MeSH equation was used to search in PubMed to find more specific
Content Title, keywords, If for any one of the questions below, the
articles. analysis abstract and article response was affirmative, the article was
objective selected:
Does it show Active Learning strategies
2.3. Step 03: Study selection and evaluation
utilized in the fields related to OHS in the
engineering specialties?
Three main exclusion criteria were adopted for the article: (i) articles Does it show the advantages or
written in languages other than English were ignored since this is treated disadvantages of these methodologies?
as the universal language for most periodicals; (ii) all the articles that Does it show the developed competencies
based on active strategies?
had not undergone a blind peer review were to be published, ignoring
Full reading If for any of the questions below the
books, book chapters, or lectures; and (iii) articles published before the response was affirmative, the article was
year 2000. This time interval aims to cover the last twenty-three years selected:
(up to April 2023) since significant changes occurred in the information Does it show Active Learning strategies
field and its dissemination. After the first collection, duplicate articles utilized in the fields related to OHS in the
engineering specialties?
that might be present on different bases were eliminated. The review Does it show the advantages or
Protocol presented in Table 2 included articles that cover the questions disadvantages of these methodologies?
asked regarding content analysis and the information to be collected. Does it show the developed competencies
based on active strategies?

2.4. Step 04: Analysis and synthesis

Data Different Active Learning strategies and their specificity; Advantages
extraction and disadvantages of utilizing each of these methodologies;
With a quantitative bias, the articles were evaluated based on their
Competencies projected to be developed.
main characteristics (title, year, authors, citations, and text) to perform a
bibliometric analysis. The grade obtained based on this evaluation also
ensures an article relevance index in a study for the research. The review impasse, avoiding any discrepancy. Fig. 1 shows a detailed analysis
was performed using a developed checklist based on Borrego et al. description, following the PRISMA Protocol.
(2015), shown in Annex 1. In this evaluation, the maximum mark the The other reasons for removing articles in the identification phase
article analyzed could achieve is 15 points; each question analyzed were the presence of book chapters and articles in other languages,
corresponds to 1 point. The evaluations were performed based on three mistakenly sent by the databases. Three thousand eighty articles were
distinct marks: 0.0, when it does not present what is being requested; found during the identification stage, beginning with the initial collec­
0.5, when it presents what is requested without an in-depth look or tion in the four databases selected. After inserting them into StArt, 104
clarity; or 1.0, when it presents what is requested in detail. were identified as duplicates and removed. In the selection, stage
Finally, the Publish or Perish software was used to identify the screening was performed based on two precepts: analysis of the title and
number of articles’ citations globally (Harzing, 2007), based on the the abstract. In this way, 2916 articles were selected. After all, 2728
criteria developed by Vieira and Amaral (2016). Research on the cita­ were eliminated, and 188 articles remained. For the selection stage, the
tions of the articles was performed in April 2023. This procedure was questions presented in the protocol (Table 2) were utilized, in which at
done to check on possible new sources for the articles chosen by this least one had to have an affirmative response.
review. The 188 articles were fully read during the screening stage,
analyzing whether they could answer at least one of the three questions
2.5. Step 05: Reporting and using the results described in the research protocol. Lastly, it was possible to identify 62
articles that answered them, excluding 126. It was chosen not to include
Two researchers initially performed this review, as recommended by articles from general readings in the research database not to lose the
the PRISMA protocol, allowing more excellent reliability in the decision impartiality and strictness described by Becheikh et al. (2006).
to include or not the articles in the research. Thus, the two authors
worked thoroughly on all stages of PRISMA. When there were dis­ 3. Results
agreements regarding the inclusion of articles, it was up to a third
subject, a non-author with experience in the study area, to resolve the The results were divided into different items for ease of interpreta­
tion. First, a bibliometric analysis of the works found in the literature
Table 1 was performed, showing their main characteristics and the evaluation
Search strategy of the research. described by the checklist in Annex 1. Next, the results found were
Group Engineering AND Occupational AND Active Learning
described for each of the three questions proposed by the research. A
education Health and discussion was held at the end, confronting the qualitative and quanti­
Safety tative findings of the study. The table of Annex 2 provides a scheme
Keywords “Engineering Ergonomics OR “Methodolog*” showing the answers to the questions in each of the selected works.
education” “Human OR “Active
Factors” OR Learning” OR
“Safety at Simulation OR
3.1. Quantitative analysis
work” OR “-based” OR
“Health at Problem
work” OR The final result after the application of the PRISMA protocol was a
“Occupational total of 62 articles, analyzed quantitatively according to their charac­
Health and teristics, structure, and writing. The articles’ characteristics were sum­
Safety”
marized in Table 3, according to the research questions answered

3
I. Rodeghiero Neto and F.G. Amaral
Fig. 1. Research structure according to the PRISMA Protocol.
(RQ1–RQ3), including the article database, the year of publication, the
type of research elaborated, the origin of the principal authors, and the
journal in which it was published.
Table 3 shows the number of papers analyzed. Scopus was the
database with the most significant number of articles, with 33 papers
(54 %). The outstanding continent for published articles was Europe,
and the country was the United States of America, with 15 articles; the
impressive review was the Journal of Engineering Education, with nine
articles. Various types of research emphasized qualitative research, with
29 articles (47 %).
As highlighted, there is a growing trend for research in this field –
teaching OHS in the engineering specialties. Articles with applied or
experimental studies and literature reviews have been observed since
the 2000 s, reaching their high point in 2020. In Fig. 2, it is possible to
identify this growing trend, highlighting the number of articles in each
of the four databases investigated.
The total number of citations of the articles selected by this survey
was 1672, with an average of 26 citations per article. The outstanding
citations in this analysis are the articles by Benešová and Tupa (2017),
Borrego et al. (2013), Besterfield-Sacre et al. (2004), Bodnar et al.
(2016), and Frank (2006). Fig. 3 shows that these five articles together
correspond to approximately 51 % of the citations of the articles
analyzed by this study.
In Fig. 3, the highlighted line above the columns corresponds to the
accumulated percentage of citations the articles have at the time of the
research. The articles selected in this study were evaluated from the
same point of view as evaluated by citations. Using a checklist shown in
Annex 1, the papers were assessed in 15 items based on the presented
4
Safety Science 171 (2024) 106391
content (introduction, theoretical background, methodology, results,
discussion, and conclusion). After a peer evaluation, the results are
presented in Table 4. Considering the mean and standard deviation of
the assessments, the maximum mark that can be achieved per question is
1 point, so the article analyzed may reach at most 15 points.
Table 4 shows the best-evaluated items in the analysis of the articles,
highlighted in gray. It is observed that most of the articles present the
definitions to understand the study (2a), as well as a justification to
perform the study (1b) and the results presented clearly (4a). These are
some of the main points to understand a work satisfactorily. It is possible
to highlight that their standard deviation is low, ensuring the similarity
of maximum scores in several evaluations. On the other hand, some
questions can be negatively highlighted: conceptual model encompass­
ing the research topics (2b), research question related to the objective
(1c), and methods for testing the reliability of results (3b). It is noticed
that these factors are important in studies of great relevance, such as
those evaluated. Still, they are not essential to understand the research.
It was possible to show those that presented the highest individual
evaluations among the studies analyzed. For instance, Borrego et al.
(2013), with 15 points; McNeill et al. (2016), with 14.5 points; Cerezo-
Narváez et al. (2019), Ahmed and Sayed (2020), and Mukhtar et al.
(2020), Safiena and Goh (2022), Menzemer et al. (2023) and, Qian et al.
(2023) with 14 points. Annex 2 presents the scores for each reference
analyzed in this article.
Based on the quantitative analysis, it was also found that the articles
collected in this research do not cite each other. This consideration may
corroborate the idea that there is extensive literature on education in
engineering and related fields. In addition, the articles analyzed did not
I. Rodeghiero Neto and F.G. Amaral Safety Science 171 (2024) 106391

Table 3
Summary of the main characteristics of the articles in the systematic review.
RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 TOTAL

N % N % N % N %

N. of studies* 49 79,03 % 36 58,06 % 41 66,13 % 62 100,00 %

Databases Scopus 30 61,22 % 17 47,22 % 21 51,22 % 33 53,23 %

Science Direct 11 22,45 % 11 30,56 % 10 24,39 % 17 27,42 %
Wiley Library Online 5 10,20 % 6 16,67 % 8 19,51 % 9 14,52 %
PubMed Central 3 6,12 % 2 5,56 % 2 4,88 % 3 4,84 %

Year 2023 3 6,12 % 1 2,78 % 0 0,00 % 3 4,84 %

2022 4 8,16 % 3 8,33 % 4 9,76 % 6 9,68 %
2021 9 18,37 % 6 16,67 % 7 17,07 % 9 14,52 %
2020 8 16,33 % 4 11,11 % 7 17,07 % 10 16,13 %
2019 5 10,20 % 4 11,11 % 1 2,44 % 5 8,06 %
2018 3 6,12 % 2 5,56 % 2 4,88 % 3 4,84 %
2017 0 0,00 % 0 0,00 % 1 2,44 % 1 1,61 %
2016 4 8,16 % 2 5,56 % 3 7,32 % 4 6,45 %
2011–2015 8 16,33 % 7 19,44 % 8 19,51 % 12 19,35 %
2006–2010 3 6,12 % 3 8,33 % 5 12,20 % 5 8,06 %
2000–2005 2 4,08 % 4 11,11 % 3 7,32 % 4 6,45 %

Research type Qualitative Research 23 46,94 % 17 47,22 % 19 46,34 % 29 46,77 %

Quantitative Research 12 24,49 % 6 16,67 % 9 21,95 % 15 24,19 %
Quali-quantitative Research 11 22,45 % 10 27,78 % 10 24,39 % 14 22,58 %
Qualitative Review 3 6,12 % 3 8,33 % 3 7,32 % 4 6,45 %

Country United States of America 12 24,49 % 10 27,78 % 9 21,95 % 15 24,19 %

Australia 4 8,16 % 3 8,33 % 4 9,76 % 6 9,68 %
Spain 6 12,24 % 4 11,11 % 6 14,63 % 6 9,68 %
China 4 8,16 % 2 5,56 % 1 2,44 % 5 8,06 %
Brazil 4 8,16 % 3 8,33 % 2 4,88 % 4 6,45 %
Other countries 19 38,78 % 14 38,89 % 19 46,34 % 26 41,94 %

Continent** Europe (12) 16 32,65 % 10 27,78 % 14 34,15 % 18 29,03 %

North America (2) 13 26,53 % 11 30,56 % 10 24,39 % 16 25,81 %
Asia (7) 10 20,41 % 6 16,67 % 7 17,07 % 14 22,58 %
Oceania (2) 5 10,20 % 4 11,11 % 5 12,20 % 7 11,29 %
South America (2) 4 8,16 % 4 11,11 % 3 7,32 % 5 8,06 %
Africa (2) 1 2,04 % 1 2,78 % 2 4,88 % 2 3,23 %
Safety Science 3 6,12 % 3 8,33 % 0 0,00 % 4 6,45 %
Proc. Social and Behavioral Sc. 0 0,00 % 1 2,78 % 3 7,32 % 3 4,84 %
Education and Training 2 4,08 % 2 5,56 % 1 2,44 % 2 3,23 %

Journal Journal of Engineering Education 7 14,29 % 5 13,89 % 6 14,63 % 9 14,52 %

Education for Chemical Eng. 2 4,08 % 1 2,78 % 2 4,88 % 2 3,23 %
HF Ergonomics in Manufac. Serv. 1 2,04 % 1 2,78 % 2 4,88 % 2 3,23 %
Journal of Cleaner Production 2 4,08 % 1 2,78 % 1 2,44 % 2 3,23 %
Procedia Manufacturing 1 2,04 % 1 2,78 % 1 2,44 % 2 3,23 %
Sustainability 2 4,08 % 1 2,78 % 2 4,88 % 2 3,23 %
Thinking Skills and Creativity 2 4,08 % 1 2,78 % 0 0,00 % 2 3,23 %
Other journals 27 55,10 % 19 52,78 % 23 56,10 % 32 51,61 %
*
In some instances, the total number is greater than 62, as some articles fit into two or more subcategories.
**
In parentheses is the number of countries covered by the surveys in each continent.

cite an article in common, and it is observed that each of them used
distinct references. It was also found that there is a lack of consecutive
works on the same topic, and it became clear that the authors did not
develop a line of research on this subject. Only two articles collected are
similar to their research topic and results (Tortorella and Cauchick-
Miguel, 2018; Tortorella et al., 2020).
3.2. RQ1 – Active learning strategies used in teaching OHS
In first question answer of this review, 15 different forms of teaching
were found for university students based on an Active Learning
approach. In Fig. 4, it was possible to find each of the articles that use it,
their interrelationship, and papers that utilize two or more strategies.
The numbers inside the balloons only express the respective method. On
the other hand, the numbers on the lines indicate two or more methods
found in the literature considered similar. It should also be pointed out
that the size of the balloon is proportional to the number of articles that
deal with the respective methods.
The most used strategy was gamification and its main developments.
For general purposes, gamification can be defined as teaching based on
entertainment (Din and Gibson, 2019), utilizing one or more elements of
games, such as points, insignias, or boards, besides progress bars (Cer­
ezo-Narváez et al., 2019). Fernández and Ceacero-Moreno (2021) add
that gamification is the entire learning process that involves human­
–computer interaction with the use of games or with the use of boards
and physical pieces.
In the sample of the articles collected, gamification was used in the
form of pieces, such as Lego® Serious Play® (Cerezo-Narváez et al.,

5
I. Rodeghiero Neto and F.G. Amaral
Fig. 2. Articles selected according to the year and database.
Fig. 3. Number of citations of the articles in the systematic review.
2019) and virtual reality games (Lanzotti et al., 2020; Swallow and Zulu,
2020; Cavalcanti et al., 2021; Urgo et al., 2022). Virtual reality is the use
of technology and computers to create different environments or situa­
tions that are similar to the real world (Seo et al., 2021; Safiena and Goh,
2022; Menzemer et al., 2023). Moreover, the articles showed online
platforms for teaching (Din and Gibson, 2019; Fernández and Ceacero-
Moreno, 2021; Milenković et al., 2019), and some combine physiolog­
ical issues of the students with learning (Huang et al., 2014). These
authors called them Web-based Learning (WBL). A literature review was
also observed (Bodnar et al., 2016), which investigated the imple­
mentation of gamification in teaching engineering students.
Another much-cited approach was Problem-Based Learning (PBL).
This method can be characterized as a student-centered approach, in
which the latter learns in an active, integrated, and constructive manner
based on social and contextual factors (Tortorella and Cauchick-Miguel,
2018; Magana et al., 2021; Qian et al., 2023). PBL does the student
6
Safety Science 171 (2024) 106391
understands the main concepts of solving problems proposed by the
teacher based on different issues (El-Zein and Hedemann, 2016; Belwal
et al., 2020). Teachers can use structured problems by developing ex­
ercises with stipulated and standardized variables or unstructured issues
by taking the problem characteristics directly from reality.
Two other reviews were observed that dealt with the concepts con­
nected to PBL (Borrego et al., 2013; El-Zein and Hedemann, 2016), in
which critiques and published works were cited. Other works applied
the strategy to teach lean manufacturing (Tortorella et al., 2020) and
process risk and safety (Hassall et al., 2020; Sigahi e Sznelwar, 2023).
Further, a platform based on PBL concepts was developed to teach In­
dustrial Engineering, including concepts of ergonomics (Lau et al.,
2006). The research also found works with Problem Solving (PS)
structured in engineering teaching (Harlim and Belski, 2015; McNeill
et al., 2016; Ahmed et al., 2021).
As well as PBL, the acquisition of knowledge in Project-based
I. Rodeghiero Neto and F.G. Amaral
Table 4
Mean and standard deviation of the questions evaluated in the articles.
ITEMS EVALUATED
INTRODUCTION 1a Clear and identifiable objective
1b Justification for perform the
study
1c Research question related to the
objective
THEORETICAL 2a The article presents the
BACKGROUND definitions to understand the
study
2b Conceptual model
encompassing the research
topics
METHODOLOGY 3a The methodological procedure
presented step by step
3b Methods for testing the
reliability of results
3c Sample capable of validating
objectives
3d The methodology is consistent
with the objective and results
RESULTS AND 4a Results presented clearly
DISCUSSION 4b Use of graphs and tables to
summarize results
CONCLUSION 5a Possibility of replication of the
study
5b The conclusion answers the
initial objective
5c Depth of study
5d Presentation of limitations and
future studies
T Average of all items
M means Average, and SD means Standard Deviation; All variables had
maximum values of 1 point and minimum values of 0.0 points; For each item,
three values can be assigned to each article: 0.0, 0.5, or 1; Averages and standard
deviations were constructed based on the ratings of each article.
Learning (PjBL) is based on the elaboration and resolution of well-
structured projects that require extensive planning (Dehdashti et al.,
2013). In this case, based on a multidisciplinary approach, the students
are invited to experience their future professions with a’hands-on’
approach (McCarthy et al., 2004), solving real-life problems from
beginning to end (Kuo et al., 2019) or with use of gamification (Gao
et al., 2021). Several authors indicate using PjBL for teaching OHS,
based on their safety practices (Qian et al., 2023) and ergonomics (Colim
et al., 2022).
The articles found related to PjBL, utilize the method and assessment
of the knowledge acquired by the students (Belwal et al., 2020;
McCarthy et al., 2004), while others consider it a good way of teaching
based on practice (García-Fayos et al., 2020; Hassall et al., 2020). The
literature reviews present critiques of this approach to teaching (El-Zein
and Hedemann, 2016), while others guarantee that it is an exciting way
of teaching, especially in a time of pandemic (Huang et al., 2020). Re­
searchers also developed an interdisciplinary method based on PjBL in
their classes called STEM IPBL (Kuo et al., 2019).
Other strategies, such as Scenario-Based Learning (ScBL), were also
shown. The idea was to teach the students concepts based on common
everyday scenarios (Jaeger and Adair, 2016) of non-structured problems
developed by the authors (Grohs et al., 2018) and those developed in
laboratories (Findeisen et al., 2019). Simulation-based Learning (SiBL)
is considered a similar strategy to creating scenarios and is utilized for
simulations when dealing with accident prevention problems, together
with the use of the computer (Davidovitch et al., 2006; West et al.,
2009).
Team-Based Learning (TBL) is another strategy that allows the
Safety Science 171 (2024) 106391
students to develop collaborative skills and is utilized together with
other approaches to amplify learning and competencies (Hassall et al.,
M SD 2020; Swallow and Zulu, 2020). Another method used was Competency-
based Training (CBT), which is a system based on the competencies
0.919 0.205
0.944 0.158 developed by the students from tests in which their capacities must be
presented, such as cooperation, participation, and competition (Mkpat
0.435 0.488 et al., 2018; Ahmed and Sayed, 2020; Huang et al., 2020). On the other
hand, the Service Learning Project (SLP) exposes students to real-life
0.952 0.148
problems and their social contexts and is utilized to teach ergonomics
(Page and Stanley, 2014).
0.177 0.382 Evidence of the use of case studies for teaching was also shown. In
these studies, a compilation of real questions was presented, with many
details regarding the situation and its accidents and problems, to suggest
solutions to problems linked to risks and safety (Bisantz and Paquet,
0.839 0.295 2002; Behm et al., 2014; García-Fayos et al., 2020). In some cases, the
case study was used in conjunction with PjBL for teaching OHS (Altay,
0.411 0.480
2014). Similar to the case studies, learning factories were also used.
0.661 0.419 These places are laboratories that supply a realistic representation of a
factory with physical elements so that learning will be based on expe­
0.847 0.278
riences and simulations of situations (Kiritsis et al., 2013; Findeisen
et al., 2019; Silva et al., 2021). Other experiments, such as storytelling,
were performed to incorporate different strategies applied (Mkpat et al.,
0.952 0.173
2018; Din and Gibson, 2019; Cavalcanti et al., 2021).
0.879 0.307
Another strategy that has emerged is Challenge-based Learning.
0.806 0.303 Similar to PjBL, it involves students developing knowledge through
group collaboration to analyze and solve challenges, discussing and
0.863 0.257 gaining experience (Gutiérrez-Martínez et al., 2021). Likewise,
0.815 0.273
Collaborative-based Learning involves shared learning experiences
0.774 0.356 through group work in strategies similar to PBL and PjBL (Bartolomé and
Benítez, 2021; Sanchez-Lite et al., 2022).
0.755 3.3. RQ2 – Advantages and disadvantages of using the active learning
strategies
There are several advantages to using Active Learning, and many of
them have been tested and validated in practices and observations. Most
of these authors guarantee the development of competencies related to
problem-solving. The commitment observed by the students experi­
encing the solution to real-life problems is the great advantage of these
approaches (Dehdashti et al., 2013; Grohs et al., 2018; Tortorella and
Cauchick-Miguel, 2018). They transform concepts into propositions for
improvement applied to the system (Lau et al., 2006; West et al., 2009;
Belwal et al., 2020; Ahmed et al., 2021). It concerns both structured and
non-structured problems (Harlim and Belski, 2015), especially their
multidisciplinary character (García-Fayos et al., 2020), encouraging
them to take decisions when dealing with these real problems (Colim
et al., 2022).
The practical experience of solving real problems enables students to
apply what was presented theoretically at the university (Page and
Stanley, 2014; Bodnar et al., 2016; Motalifu et al., 2022). Thus, the
student’s reality of different stimuli is made available, showing evidence
of matters linked to creativity and decision-making (Davidovitch et al.,
2006; Cerezo-Narváez et al., 2019), when they solve challenges and
acquire deep knowledge (Gutiérrez-Martínez et al., 2021). It contributes
to constructive competition and collaboration (Milenković et al., 2019)
and reduces the gap between learning and real environments (Kiritsis
et al., 2013).
Different active learning strategies are also linked to creating
different environments that increase student motivation, satisfaction,
and participation (Seo et al., 2021; Urgo et al., 2022). The scenarios
created are conducive to OHS (Cavalcanti et al., 2021), as they stimulate
the student’s deep learning through challenges (Gutiérrez-Martínez
et al., 2021) and their respective solutions (Altay, 2014). In addition to
knowledge, various competencies are necessary for an engineer
(Bartolomé and Benítez, 2021), which can be developed through ac­
tivities such as analyzing, synthesizing, evaluating, and listening (Silva
7
I. Rodeghiero Neto and F.G. Amaral
Fig. 4. Active Learning strategies utilized by the authors.
et al., 2021).
Another much-discussed point was the development of competencies
at their speed (Toft et al., 2003; Kiritsis et al., 2013; Findeisen et al.,
2019; Ahmed and Sayed, 2020). Very significantly, it is observed that
teamwork is one of the great advantages of active approaches to
teaching (Borrego et al., 2013; Dehdashti et al., 2013). In this context,
students improve their social interaction (Din and Gibson, 2019),
ensuring the increased quality of communication and the way they ex­
press themselves (Lau et al., 2006; Bodnar et al., 2016). This idea is
somewhat related to greater amusement and motivation to learn (Toft
et al., 2003; Oviedo-Trespalacios et al., 2015) since it helps the student
become committed and committed constantly participate (Bisantz and
Paquet, 2002; Milenković et al., 2019).
According to some researchers, besides developing of competencies,
one great benefit of an active approach to learning is retaining knowl­
edge (Davidovitch et al., 2006; Page and Stanley, 2014; Qian et al.,
2023). This acquisition of knowledge and retention (Bisantz and Paquet,
2002; Milenković et al., 2019) occurs because of the more dynamic and
different way of teaching, attracting the student’s attention and interest.
In this way, students can reflect on their knowledge (Dehdashti et al.,
2013; Cerezo-Narváez et al., 2019) and its evolution, ensuring increased
achievements in cognitive learning (West et al., 2009; Din and Gibson,
2019).
The student can experience internal and personal issues exposed to
an active teaching approach. Autonomy in search of knowledge
(Oviedo-Trespalacios et al., 2015; Belwal et al., 2020) and self-direction
in studies (Lau et al., 2006) are worked on, positively altering the stu­
dent’s behavior toward research.
Many of the disadvantages of applying Active Learning were attrib­
uted to the teachers. The professional development of a teacher with no
8
Safety Science 171 (2024) 106391
industry or business experience can be problematic in using active ap­
proaches and the absence of training in the methods themselves (Ahmed
and Sayed, 2020). Thus, teachers must dedicate much time to this before
and during the classes (Belwal et al., 2020). Page and Stanley (2014) say
that having a team of instructors to utilize Active Learning requires a
change in the program structure.
For Grohs et al. (2018), there is no adequate tool to supply individ­
ual, high-quality student feedback. This consideration may lead to
several other limitations in employing of active strategies, such as
incentive, fragility, distaste for Active Learning, dropping out from
courses, diminished motivation to work in teams (Belwal et al., 2020),
and difficulty in understanding how these approaches work.
The lack of commitment and cooperation of students among them­
selves was highlighted by Borrego et al. (2013). This problem occurs
because some of them take advantage of others to carry out the activities
proposed by the strategies. One of the limitations also presented was
difficulty in a constructive debate that will aggregate people. Therefore,
Ahmed and Sayed (2020) advocate that students’ resistance to change is
one of the great limitations in employing Active Learning.
The so-called relationship between the business problem and the
competencies the students must develop to solve them is another limi­
tation in strategies that demand problem-solving (Kiritsis et al., 2013).
Often, this supposed perfect relationship does not explore a large part of
a company’s internal activities (McCarthy et al., 2004), neglecting, for
instance, social and political issues (El-Zein and Hedemann, 2016).
Another point concerns the limitations of time needed to solve projects
and problems because it is challenging to perform them in one semester
or even a year (Colim et al., 2022), considering their complexity and
extent.
Finally, for McCarthy et al. (2004), using Active Learning does not
I. Rodeghiero Neto and F.G. Amaral Safety Science 171 (2024) 106391

allow solving the problems in education. The limited number of students
in courses employing these approaches (McCarthy et al., 2004; Din and
Gibson, 2019) implies a larger team of professors and the use of physical
materials and laboratory components (Ahmed and Sayed, 2020) that
often depend on limiting issues concerning the universities themselves,
promoting a non-realistic scenario (West et al., 2009).
3.4. RQ3 – Competences developed by utilizing the active learning
strategies
For better knowledge systematization, these competencies were
grouped according to their similarity and shown in Table 5. Thus, six
classifications were established according to their specificities.
Communication is developed by exchanging information among
classmates, whether through debates and discussions (Davidovitch
et al., 2006; Oviedo-Trespalacios et al., 2015) or based on affective
communication (Nanda et al., 2014; Silva et al., 2021). Besides, the
interpersonal relationship is increased through communication
(Pomales-García and Liu, 2007), ensuring that students receive infor­
mation from this source (Fernández and Ceacero-Moreno, 2021). Active
strategies allow learners to communicate better and express themselves
more clearly when entering the work market (McCarthy et al., 2004;

Table 5
Main competencies developed by Active Learning strategies Bisantz and Paquet (2002), Toft et al. (2003), McCarthy et al. (2004), Davidovitch et al. (2006), Frank
(2006), Lau et al. (2006), Pomales-García and Liu (2007), Ahmed et al. (2021), Ahmed and Sayed (2020), Altay (2014), Bartolomé and Benítez (2021), Belwal et al.
(2020), Benešová and Tupa (2017), Bodnar et al. (2016), Cavalcanti et al. (2021), Cerezo-Narváez et al. (2019), Colim et al. (2022), Dehdashti et al. (2013), Deros et al.
(2012), El-Zein and Hedemann (2016), Fernández and Ceacero-Moreno (2021), García-Fayos et al. (2020), Gutiérrez-Martínez et al. (2021). Hassall et al. (2020),
Kiritsis et al. (2013), Kunrath et al. (2020), Lanzotti et al. (2020), Magana et al. (2021), McNeill et al. (2016), Mkpat et al. (2018), Mukhtar et al. (2020), Nanda et al.
(2014), Oviedo-Trespalacios et al. (2015), Page and Stanley (2014), Sanchez-Lite et al. (2022), Silva et al. (2021), Tortorella and Cauchick-Miguel (2018), West et al.
(2009), Zaharim et al. (2012), Oppert et al. (2022), Urgo et al. (2022).

9
I. Rodeghiero Neto and F.G. Amaral
Bodnar et al., 2016; El-Zein and Hedemann, 2016).
Likewise, teamwork was another competency that was often
remembered. Concerning teamwork, the student is the center of learning
in most methods when working with his classmates. Thus, in solving
problems and projects as a team (Deros et al., 2012; Page and Stanley,
2014), the student works on matters such as team management
(Pomales-García and Liu, 2007) and leadership (Kunrath et al., 2020;
Magana et al., 2021), and also learn to share the responsibility of doing
what was requested with his classmates (Gutiérrez-Martínez et al.,
2021). According to the authors, this can be called collaborative
learning (Mkpat et al., 2018; Sanchez-Lite et al., 2022).
Another point concerns problem-solving competencies (Bisantz and
Paquet, 2002; Tortorella and Cauchick-Miguel, 2018; Ahmed et al.,
2021). Students develop this skill based on concepts of experimentation
and application of their knowledge (Zaharim et al., 2012; Urgo et al.,
2022). Creativity (Kunrath et al., 2020; Oppert et al., 2022) and
decision-making (Hassall et al., 2020; Cavalcanti et al., 2021) were
introduced for this purpose since they are part of the entire process of
developing the ability to solve structured and non-structured problems.
In addition to problem-solving, other essential competencies were
shown to modify adversities at work. One is analytic thinking (Belwal
et al., 2020), in which it is necessary to interpret and reflect on what is
happening (Cerezo-Narváez et al., 2019). Moreover, active strategies
promote critical thinking in the students (Bartolomé and Benítez, 2021),
making them give suggestions that can be plausibly applied to real-life
work situations, besides correct arguments and necessary judgments
(West et al., 2009; García-Fayos et al., 2020).
Responsibility was mentioned several times (Dehdashti et al., 2013;
Nanda et al., 2014) since each group component has a series of activities
that must be performed to fulfill the requested task. Matters of ethics
(Mukhtar et al., 2020) and motivation (Lau et al., 2006; Colim et al.,
2022) are also worked on since the propositions were raised to show the
student’s reality when carrying out his functions. Self-confidence is also
developed (Altay, 2014; McNeill et al., 2016) because the student feels
more secure in applying the theoretical knowledge that is presented to
him.
Professional competencies (Ahmed and Sayed, 2020) and strategic
thinking (Kunrath et al., 2020) were surveyed as experiences based on
exposure to methods that aim to solve non-structured problems. Sys­
temic thinking was also shown (Frank, 2006; Lanzotti et al., 2020)
because it allows working with the knowledge of the entire organization
and what happens in it (Benešová and Tupa, 2017), besides maximizing
the indicators (Lau et al., 2006). In addition, the methodological com­
petencies were also raised, showing that the use of tools and methods to
evaluate OHS is improved (Kiritsis et al., 2013).
It became clear that conceptual understanding was increased by
these strategies (McNeill et al., 2016), as well as the autonomy to learn
(Benešová and Tupa, 2017) and the development of other languages
(Belwal et al., 2020). Also often reported was the matter involving
lifelong learning (Deros et al., 2012; Page and Stanley, 2014; Silva et al.,
2021), in which the content is kept longer with the student. Finally,
other competencies that were not widely cited appeared in the review,
such as logical thinking (Kiritsis et al., 2013), social competencies, and
the appreciation of this context (Toft et al., 2003), as well as matters
connected to research (Belwal et al., 2020) innovation and entrepre­
neurship (Colim et al., 2022).
4. Discussion
Different authors portrayed their methods’ experiences and pre­
sented their functions and concepts. Thus, it was possible to observe no
single active way of teaching OHS to engineering classes. However, it
was found that the union of two or more strategies appears to be most
appropriate for teaching, escaping traditional education, and, at the
same time, ensuring the students’ satisfaction and the development of
competencies required by the work market (Huang et al., 2020; Swallow
10
Safety Science 171 (2024) 106391
and Zulu, 2020; Qian et al., 2023).
Fig. 4 shows diverse active learning strategies and different vocab­
ularies for each, e.g., Gamification, PBL, and PjBL. These three are pio­
neering and considered by Belwal et al. (2020) as ‘umbrella’ strategies,
and the others that exist in the literature are derived from their main
concepts and characteristics. Even so, most strategies work with
problem-solving, one of the excellent competencies for a professional in
this field to perform in the work market (Nanda et al., 2014; Fernández
and Ceacero-Moreno, 2021). Incorporating structured and unstructured
problems allows these strategies to generate scenarios closer to the re­
ality found in companies, bringing different benefits to students (El-Zein
and Hedemann, 2016; Dringenberg and Purzer, 2018).
On the other hand, given the different benefits that each one pre­
sents, it is not yet possible to say which the ideal, specific, and indicated
is. They all allow the creation of conditions for developing of learning
outcomes (Prince, 2004; Hernández-de-Menéndez et al., 2019). The
diversity of strategies also occurs in the different forms portrayed in the
literature, which conceptualizes these methods and puts them into
practice, even if all of them approach similar concepts since they
minimize the distance between the idea taught at universities and pro­
fessional practice (Lau et al., 2006; El-Zein and Hedemann, 2016).
Lombardi and Shipley (2021) further argue that even recognizing the
confusion around the conceptualization of active learning, any tool
other than traditional teaching already contributes to the generation of a
culture of interaction and student autonomy.
It should be noted that the principal learning strategies found by this
systematic review of the literature require, for the most part, a signifi­
cant amount of time for their execution (Andersen et al., 2019; García-
Fayos et al., 2020). Shorter duration strategies can teach in a single class,
e.g., Think pair share, Flipped Classroom, and Peer Instruction (Schmidt,
2011; Jo et al., 2018; Chiquito et al., 2020), were not found in the sixty-
two articles analyzed in this review. Although these methods have a
shorter time horizon, it is worth noting that they also contribute to
student engagement and develop competencies and knowledge.
As a result of this review, it was observed a series of works that
applied active learning and presented the advantages of this application
with due justifications for their choice. However, works that compare
the advantages and disadvantages and the benefits for students remain
unknown in the OHS teaching literature in engineering, which would
support teachers and tutors in deciding which approach to use, as those
by Barak et al. (2006), García-Peñalvo et al. (2019), and Oproescu et al.
(2019). These works elucidate the advantages and disadvantages of
active learning in their teaching contexts.
Regarding competency development, the articles in this review
showed many different capacities that the students could acquire. For
instance, in specific works in the field, such as those of Zaharim et al.
(2012), Benešová and Tupa (2017), and Lanzotti et al. (2020), the
competencies needed by an OHS professional are pointed out, such as
teamwork, systemic thinking, and problem-solving.
The job market demands different professional competencies that
can be better developed in active learning methodologies compared to
traditional ones (Belwal et al., 2020; Kunrath et al., 2020). Even
recognizing all the competencies developed by these active strategies,
no studies were found in the literature that showed the competencies
needed by an OHS professional. Identify the competencies required by
an OHS professional can also be observed in the documents ruled by
government agencies. Their confrontation with the literature may pro­
vide a critical analysis of choosing Active Learning (such as the Inter­
national Labor Organization – ILO and International Ergonomics
Association – IEA Standards).
It was evidenced in the analysis of articles the lack of discussion
about results in the application of active strategies. The articles only deal
with opposing points and problems during the methods’ application. In
other words, many works are focused on the limitations of the study/
case, but few highlight the intrinsic practical and theoretical limits of the
methods themselves. It is crucial as discussing possible disadvantages
I. Rodeghiero Neto and F.G. Amaral
can help teachers adequately prepare for the adversities that may arise
during classes (Kiritsis et al., 2013; Ahmed and Sayed, 2020). This lack
of discussion makes it challenging to prepare teachers for using active
learning in teaching and is characterized as a significant gap in the
literature.
As discussed in the introduction, the other gap in the literature due to
the absence of theoretical studies that relate active learning in engi­
neering and OHS leaves a series of limitations for the area and the
teachers. Therefore, the first finding of this research is the creation of an
overview that presents the results of a systematic review, with a
compilation of the main findings and analysis of 62 articles found in the
literature.
Another point that can be highlighted is that these articles do not
present a relationship between the contents taught in OHS and the
teaching strategies used. These contents are basics and are present in all
OHS courses in engineering. As a second finding of this research, Fig. 5
shows a theoretical model that relates the topics covered in OHS courses,
their possible active learning strategies, and their advantages, limita­
tions, and possible competencies developed.
For better guidance to professionals in the field of education, this
article sought to connect the methods to possible topics that would best
fit the teaching of OHS in engineering. These suggestions were made
based on the main concepts worked on in this field and under the main
guidelines in health courses in engineering.
Since gamification is a strategy that unites amusement and teaching,
generally, it is seen in quick question-and-answer and board games or
more complex ones, such as virtual reality (Bodnar et al., 2016; Cerezo-
Narváez et al., 2019; Din and Gibson, 2019; Fernández and Ceacero-
Moreno, 2021; Urgo et al., 2022). For question-and-answer games,
rules related to OHS, such as the American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), International Organization of Standard­
ization – ISO and the World Health Organization WHO, fit perfectly,
stimulating the student to answer theoretical questions and compete
with their classmates. However, for strategies to identify risks in several
environments, virtual reality may be helpful so that, in his environment
and based on his vision, the student experiences different situations of
danger and their probabilities.
PBL is a teaching method in which teachers present problems to
students, encouraging them to work together to find solutions and
develop knowledge (El-Zein and Hedemann, 2016; Tortorella and
Cauchick-Miguel, 2018; Belwal et al., 2020; Magana et al., 2021; Qian
Fig. 5. Theoretical model developed based on this systematic review.
11
Safety Science 171 (2024) 106391
et al., 2023). The evaluations of the restrictions imposed on workers in
work situations, both physical and mental, are excellent experiences to
use in this strategy since they are case-by-case analyses and more rapid
to perform in a work situation. For assessments, the activity begins with
identifying problems and non-conformities from the interview with the
worker and observing his work. Based on the results of these analyses, a
ranking with different suggestions for improvement is made so that
students develop teamwork and creative, critical, and logical thinking.
Finally, PjBL aims to develop the student’s knowledge in a project
covering its execution (McCarthy et al., 2004; Dehdashti et al., 2013;
Kuo et al., 2019; Gao et al., 2021; Colim et al., 2022). Thus, concepts that
are more difficult to understand, corresponding to various stages and
analyses, such as risk management, organizational analysis for a busi­
ness, and the development of products from the ergonomic viewpoint,
were related to this method. These topics within the OHS are more
extensive and demand many classes for an activity to be carried out. It
makes essential competencies for an engineer to be developed, such as
teamwork, systems thinking, and communication among co-workers.
It should be pointed out that some questions were left out of Fig. 5
because they fit the three methods perfectly: solving problems as an
advantage in their application, and communication, and autonomy as
competencies developed, for instance. It is also valid to recall that here
they are compared individually. Still, their combination in an Active
Learning environment may cover all advantages and the development of
different competencies, further contributing to improved teaching. This
stage is also unknown in the literature and a possible research question
for future studies.
The third finding of the research is related to the gap generated by
the lack of similar studies. However, the results showed that the articles
mainly addressed OHS concepts in combination with other areas of
engineering rather than focusing exclusively on active learning in OHS.
As a result, studies solely aimed at active learning in OHS are scarce.
Therefore, the literature gap lies in applying these methods to specific
themes in the contribution of OHS within engineering. It would increase
teachers’ confidence to use active learning in teaching OHS, avoiding
approaches such as expository and lectures. By knowing the different
advantages that each strategy presents, and its limitations, teachers can
develop their classes with greater conviction in their planning.
I. Rodeghiero Neto and F.G. Amaral Safety Science 171 (2024) 106391

5. Conclusion
Based on a systematic literature review, this study allowed investi­
gation of the main characteristics of teaching OHS within the different
engineering specialties. From the studies analyzed, it was possible to
identify and discuss the active learning most utilized in OHS, seeking to
show evidence of its main characteristics, definitions, and limitations.
The findings and observations in this article give teachers and re­
searchers a glimpse of many other active learning strategies, their ad­
vantages and disadvantages, and where they are most applied. The
intention was to provide teaching professionals with more excellent
knowledge in choice and theoretical support, besides encouraging them
to make teaching increasingly practical and more active than the
traditional or directive one.
Thus, it could be said that there are no studies with an analysis of
literature on the topic discussed – the use of active learning strategies to
teach of OHS in the various types of engineering. Even so, it can be
perceived that gamification, PBL, and PjBL were the most cited by the
articles analyzed, ensuring the development of different competencies.
Besides the various advantages of these approaches, it was also possible
to observe several limitations involving the university, such as the
infrastructure for practice and the incentive for the teacher to utilize
active learning, e.g., workload and the excess of administrative de­
mands, and for the student, such as lack of commitment and resistance to
change.
Finally, from this study, the researchers’ findings, already found in
their field research studies, were perceived, the latter based mainly on
the opinion of students and teachers. The possibility of bias is one of the
main limitations of all review studies, normally associated with the
protocol used. The PRISMA 2020 Protocol reduces these biases in
identifying the articles that make up this review but fully prevents errors
in including articles that answer the research questions. In order to avoid
this situation as much as possible, the authors evaluated all articles in
full with absolute rigor, not leaving out any important work. Other
limitations in the results found also stand out, including considering
only articles in English (excluding articles in Spanish, for example) and
excluding articles from events and conferences, as they do not have peer
review. For future studies, it is suggested to validate the picture devel­
oped by this research, performing the tests to verify the positive rela­
tionship between the different Active Learning and the main concepts of
OHS. Additionally, it is essential to investigate the opinions of pro­
fessionals, including those already in the job market, managers, re­
searchers, and technical associations, to understand what is necessary
for engineering professionals to enhance their work per current engi­
neering standards.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Italo Rodeghiero Neto: Writing – review & editing, Writing –
original draft, Visualization, Methodology, Data curation, Conceptuali­
zation. Fernando Gonçalves Amaral: Writing – review & editing,
Writing – original draft, Visualization, Methodology, Data curation,
Conceptualization, Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

Annex 1.

Annex 1 presents the checklist for quantitative assessment, adapted from Borrego et al. (2015). The maximum grade that the analyzed article can
reach is 15 points. Assessments are made from three different grades: 0.0, 0.5 or 1.0.

General General article data

Authors name
Title
Abstract
Year
Journal
Country
Research type
Section 1 Introduction
1a Clear and identifiable objective
1b Justification for carrying out the study
1c Research question related to the objective
Section 2 Theoretical Background
2a The article presents the concepts to understand the study
2b Conceptual model encompassing the research topics
Section 3 Methodology
3a The methodological procedure presented step by step
3b Methods for testing the reliability of results
3c Sample capable of validating objectives
3d The methodology is consistent with the objective and results
Section 4 Results and discussion
4a Results presented clearly
4b Use of graphs and tables to summarize results
Section 5 Conclusion
5a Possibility of replication of the study
5b The conclusion answers the initial objective
5c Depth of study
5d Presentation of limitations and future studies
Total Score (0–15)

12
I. Rodeghiero Neto and F.G. Amaral Safety Science 171 (2024) 106391

Annex 2.

Annex 2 presents the articles selected in the systematic review with their respective reference, title, and research question that contributed to the
discussion. The whole ball corresponds when the article answers the question; if it is empty, the answer to the question is not in the body of the text.
Furthermore, the score for each reference was placed in the fifth column, which originates from the checklist applied in the quantitative analysis.

Reference Title RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 SC.

Bisantz and Paquet (2002) Implementation and Evaluation of a Multi-course Case Study for Framing Laboratory Exercises ● ● ● 11
Toft et al. (2003) Human-centred engineers—a model for holistic interdisciplinary communication and professional practice ○ ● ● 9
Besterfield-Sacre et al. (2004) Scoring Concept Maps: An Integrated Rubric for Assessing Engineering Education ○ ● ○ 13
McCarthy et al. (2004) Developments in Project and Multimedia- based Learning in Manufacturing Systems Engineering ● ● ● 6.5
Davidovitch et al. (2006) Simulation-based Learning in Engineering Education: Performance and Transfer in Learning Project Management ● ● ● 12.5
Frank (2006) Knowledge, Abilities, Cognitive Characteristics with High Capacity for Competences of Engineers and Behavioral ○ ○ ● 12
Engineering Systems Thinking (CEST)
Lau et al. (2006) IMELS: An E-Learning Platform for Industrial Engineering ● ● ● 9.5
Pomales-García and Liu Excellence in Engineering Education: Views of Undergraduate Engineering Students ○ ○ ● 8
(2007)
West et al. (2009) Computer-Based simulation in Blended learning Curriculum for Hazardous Waste site Worker Health and safety ● ● ● 8
training
Deros et al. (2012) Improving Teaching and Learning Effectiveness Through Customer’s Feedback ○ ○ ● 9.5
Zaharim et al. (2012) Evaluating the Soft Skills Performed by Applicants of Malaysian Engineers ○ ○ ● 10.5
Borrego et al. (2013) Team Effectiveness Theory from Industrial and Organizational Psychology Applied to Engineering Student Project ● ● ○ 15
Teams: A Research Review
Dehdashti et al. (2013) Incorporation of Project-based Learning into an Occupational Health Course ● ● ● 9.5
Kiritsis et al. (2013) A competence-based industrial learning approach for factories of the future ● ● ● 12
Altay, 2014) User-centered design through learner centered instruction ● ● ● 11.5
Behm et al. (2014) Development of safe design thinking among engineering students ● ○ ○ 12.5
Huang et al. (2014) Matching/mismatching in web-based learning: a perspective based on cognitive styles and physiological factors ● ○ ○ 10.5
Nanda et al. (2014) User Requirement Analysis for an Online Collaboration Tool for Senior Industrial Engineering Design Course ○ ○ ● 10
Page and Stanley (2014) Ergonomics Service Learning Project: Implementing an Alternative Educational Method in an Industrial ● ● ● 8.5
Engineering Undergraduate Ergonomics Course
Harlim and Belski (2015) On the effectiveness of TRIZ tools for problem finding ● ● ○ 8
Oviedo-Trespalacios et al. Building the life-long learning competence in undergraduate engineering students with a laboratory practice in ○ ● ● 10
(2015) learning curve
Bodnar et al. (2016) Engineers at Play: Games as Teaching Tools for Undergraduate Engineering Students ● ● ● 13
El-Zein and Hedemann Beyond problem solving: Engineering and the public good in the 21st century ● ● ● 6.5
(2016)
Jaeger and Adair (2016) Time pressure in scenario-based online construction safety quizzes and its effect on students’ performance ● ○ ○ 10
McNeill et al. (2016) Undergraduate Students’ Beliefs about Engineering Problem Solving ● ○ ● 14.5
Benešová and Tupa (2017) Requirements for Education and Qualification of People in Industry 4.0 ○ ○ ● 5
Grohs et al. (2018) Assessing systems thinking: A tool to measure complex reasoning through ill-structured problems ● ● ○ 9
Mkpat et al. (2018) Process safety education: A literature review ● ○ ● 12
Tortorella and Cauchick- Combining traditional teaching methods and PBL for teaching and learning of lean manufacturing ● ● ● 10
Miguel (2018)
Cerezo-Narváez et al. (2019) Training Competences in Industrial Risk Prevention with Lego® Serious Play®: A Case Study ● ● ● 14
Din and Gibson (2019) Serious games for learning prevention through design concepts: An experimental study ● ● ○ 13
Findeisen et al. (2019) Classification Approach for Use Cases Within a demonstration Factory Environment ● ● ○ 8
Kuo et al. (2019) Promoting college student’s learning motivation and creativity through a STEM interdisciplinary PBL ● ○ ○ 13.5
human–computer interaction system design and development course
Milenković et al. (2019) Improving student engagement in a biometric classroom: the contribution of gamification ● ● ○ 13.5
Ahmed and Sayed (2020) Development of competency-based training system in Assiut- ITEC: A case study ● ● ● 12
Belwal et al. (2020) Project-based learning (PBL): outcomes of students’ engagement in an external consultancy project in Oman ● ● ● 13
García-Fayos et al. (2020) Process safety training for chemical engineers in Spain: Overview and the example of the polytechnic university of ● ● ● 10.5
Valencia
Hassall et al. (2020) Student perspectives on integrating industrial practice in risk and process safety education ● ○ ● 9
Huang et al. (2020) Engineering Design Thinking and Making: Online Transdisciplinary Teaching and Learning in a Covid-19 Context ● ○ ○ 6
Kunrath et al. (2020) Designers’ professional identity: personal attributes and design skills ○ ○ ● 12
Lanzotti et al. (2020) Interactive Tools for Safety 4.0: Virtual Ergonomics and Serious Games in Real Working Contexts ● ○ ● 8
Mukhtar et al. (2020) Conceptual Model of Technical Sustainability for Integration into Electrical/Electronic Engineering Programmes in ○ ○ ● 14
Nigerian Polytechnics
Swallow and Zulu (2020) Students’ awareness and perception of the value of BIM and 4D for site health and safety management ● ○ ○ 10
Tortorella et al. (2020) An empirical investigation on learning and teaching lean manufacturing ● ● ○ 12.5
Ahmed et al. (2021) Differences between Professionals and Students in Their Visual Attention on Multiple Representation Types While ● ● ● 14
Solving an Open-Ended Engineering Design Problem
Bartolomé and Benítez Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) to improve collaborative project-based learning: Case study of a Study and ● ● ● 13,5
(2021) Research Path in mechanical engineering
Cavalcanti et al. (2021) Gamification and Hazard Communication in Virtual Reality: A Qualitative Study ● ● ● 13
Fernández and Ceacero- Study of the Training of Environmentalists through Gamification as a University Course ● ○ ● 12
Moreno (2021)
Gao et al. (2021) Information-flow-based Safety Education (IFSE): an indispensable perspective on safety education ● ○ ○ 11,5
Gutiérrez-Martínez et al. A Challenge-Based Learning Experience in Industrial Engineering in the Framework of Education 4.0 ● ● ● 13
(2021)
Magana et al. (2021) Teamwork facilitation and conflict resolution training in a HyFlex course during the COVID-19 pandemic ● ○ ● 13,5
Seo et al. (2021) Establishment of Virtual-Reality-Based Safety Education and Training System for Safety Engagement ● ● ○ 13
Silva et al. (2021) Active Learning “Factory of Boxes” in the Teaching-Learning Processes in Engineering and Entrepreneurship ● ● ● 11
(continued on next page)

13
I. Rodeghiero Neto and F.G. Amaral Safety Science 171 (2024) 106391

(continued )
Reference Title RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 SC.

Colim et al. (2022) Occupational Safety & Ergonomics training of Future Industrial Engineers: A Project-Based Learning Approach ● ● ● 11
Motalifu et al. (2022) Chemical process safety education in China: An overview and the way forward ○ ● ○ 13,5
Oppert et al. (2022) A Mixed-Methods Study of Creative Problem Solving and Psychosocial Safety Climate: Preparing Engineers for the ● ○ ○ 12,5
Future of Work
Safiena and Goh (2022) A hazard identification digital simulation game developed based on the extended authentic learning framework ● ○ ● 14
Sanchez-Lite et al. (2022) BIM for the Realization of Sustainable Digital Models in a University-Business Collaborative Learning Environment: ● ○ ● 13,5
Assessment of Use and Students’ Perception
Urgo et al. (2022) Design of serious games in engineering education: An application to the configuration and analysis of ● ● ● 13
manufacturing systems
Menzemer et al. (2023) A scoping review and bibliometric analysis of methods for fire evacuation training in buildings ● ○ ○ 14
Qian et al. (2023) Safety education 4.0 – A critical review and a response to the process industry 4.0 need in chemical engineering ● ○ ● 14
curriculum
Sigahi and Sznelwar (2023) From isolated actions to systemic transformations: Exploring innovative initiatives on engineering education for ● ○ ○ 13
sustainable development in Brazil

References Cerezo-Narváez, A., Córdoba-Roldán, A., Pastor-Fernández, A., Aguayo-González, F.,

Otero-Mateo, M., Ballesteros-Pérez, P., 2019. Training competences in industrial risk
prevention with Lego® serious Play®: a case study. Safety 5 (4). https://doi.org/
Ahmed, A., Hurwitz, D., Gestson, S., Brown, S., 2021. Differences between professionals
10.3390/safety5040081.
and students in their visual attention on multiple representation types while solving
Chiquito, M., Castedo, R., Santos, A.P., López, L.M., Alarcón, C., 2020. Flipped classroom
an open-ended engineering design problem. J. Civil Eng. Educ. 147 (3) https://doi.
in engineering: the influence of gender. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 28 (1), 80–89.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.2643-9115.0000044.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22176.
Ahmed, A., Sayed, K., 2020. Development of competency-based training system in
Colim, A., Carneiro, P., Carvalho, J.D., Teixeira, S., 2022. Occupational safety &
Assiut- ITEC: a case study. J. Compet. Based Educ. 5 (3), 1–12. https://doi.org/
ergonomics training of future industrial engineers: a project-based learning
10.1002/cbe2.1217.
approach. Proc. Comput. Sci. 204, 505–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Andersen, A., Brunoe, T. D., Nielsen, K., 2019. Engineering education in changeable and
procs.2022.08.119.
reconfigurable manufacturing: using Problem-based Learning in a learning factory
Crawley, E., Malmqvist, J., Ostlund, S., Brodeur, D., 2007. Rethinking engineering
environment. In: Procedia CIRP 81 Conference on Manufacturing Systems, 7–12.
education. The CDIO Approach. Springer, New York, NY.
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.002>.
Davidovitch, L., Parush, A., Shtub, A., 2006. Simulation-based learning in engineering
Astolfi, B., Costa, D., Campese, C., Costa, J. M., 2016. Project-based learning: a new way
education: performance and transfer in learning project management. J. Eng. Educ.
to teach ergonomics. In: Proceedings of 14th International Design Conference,
95 (4), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00904.x.
2037–2048.
Dehdashti, A., Mehralizadeh, S., Kashani, M.M., 2013. Incorporation of project-based
Altay, B., 2014. User-centered design through learner centered instruction. Teach. High.
learning into an occupational health course. J. Occup. Health 55 (3), 125–131.
Educ. 19 (2), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.827646.
https://doi.org/10.1539/joh.12-0162-oa.
Barak, M., Lipson, A., Lerman, S., 2006. Wireless laptops as means for promoting active
Deros, B., Mohamed, N., Saibani, N., Rahman, N., 2012. Improving teaching and learning
learning in large lecture halls. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 38 (3), 245–263. https://doi.
effectiveness through customer’s feedback. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 60, 196–205.
org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782459.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.368.
Bartolomé, E., Benítez, P., 2021. Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) to improve
Din, Z., Gibson Jr., G., 2019. Serious games for learning prevention through design
collaborative project-based learning: case study of a study and research path in
concepts: an experimental study. Saf. Sci. 115, 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
mechanical engineering. Int. J. Mech. Eng. Educ. 50 (2), 1–35. https://doi.org/
ssci.2019.02.005.
10.1177/0306419021999046.
Dringenberg, E., Purzer, S.Y., 2018. Experiences of first-year engineering students
Becheikh, N., Landry, R., Amara, N., 2006. Lessons from innovation empirical studies in
working on ill-structured problems in teams. J. Eng. Educ. 107 (3), 442–467.
the manufacturing sector: a systematic review of the literature from 1993–2003.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20220.
Technovation 26, 644–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2005.06.016.
Dul, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayon, P., Falzon, P., Marras, W.S., Wilson, J.R., van der
Behm, M., Culvenor, J., Dixon, G., 2014. Development of safe design thinking among
Doelen, B., 2012. A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the
engineering students. Saf. Sci. 63, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.10.018.
discipline and profession. Ergonomics 55 (4), 377–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Belwal, R., Belwal, S., Sufian, A., Badi, A., 2020. Project-based learning (PBL): outcomes
00140139.2012.661087.
of students’ engagement in an external consultancy project in Oman. Educ. + Train.
Dul, J., Neumann, P., 2009. Ergonomics contributions to company strategies. Appl.
63 (3), 336–359. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-01-2020-0006.
Ergon. 40 (4), 745–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2008.07.001.
Benešová, A., Tupa, J., 2017. Requirements for education and qualification of people in
El-Zein, A.H., Hedemann, C., 2016. Beyond problem solving: engineering and the public
industry 4.0. Proc. Manuf. 11, 2195–2202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
good in the 21st century. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 692–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
promfg.2017.07.366.
jclepro.2016.07.129.
Besterfield-Sacre, M., Gerchak, J., Lyons, M.R., Shuman, L.J., Wolfe, H., 2004. Scoring
Felder, R.M., Brent, R., Prince, M.J., 2011. Engineering instructional development:
concept maps: an integrated rubric for assessing engineering education. J. Eng. Educ.
programs, best practices, and recommendations. J. Eng. Educ. 100 (1), 89–122.
93 (2), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00795.x.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00005.x.
Bisantz, A.M., Paquet, V.L., 2002. Implementation and evaluation of a multi-course case
Fernández, P., Ceacero-Moreno, M., 2021. Study of the training of environmentalists
study for framing laboratory exercises. J. Eng. Educ. 91 (3), 299–307. https://doi.
through gamification as a university course. Sustainability 13 (4). https://doi.org/
org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2002.tb00707.x.
10.3390/su13042323.
Bodnar, C.A., Anastasio, D., Enszer, J.A., Burkey, D.D., 2016. Engineers at play: games as
Findeisen, S., Koerting, L., Schumacher, S., Eusterwiemann, T., Haemmerle, M.,
teaching tools for undergraduate engineering students. J. Eng. Educ. 105 (1),
Pokorni, B., 2019. Classification approach for use cases within a demonstration
147–200. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20106.
factory environment. Proc. Manuf. 39, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Bolis, I., Morioka, S.N., Brunoro, C.M., Zambroni-de-Souza, P.C., Sznelwar, L.I., 2020.
promfg.2020.01.249.
The centrality of workers to sustainability based on values: exploring ergonomics to
Frank, M., 2006. Knowledge, abilities, cognitive characteristics with high capacity for
introduce new rationalities into decision-making processes. Appl. Ergon. 88, 1–11.
Competences of Engineers and Behavioral Engineering Systems Thinking (CEST).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103148.
Syst. Eng. 9 (2), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.20048.
Borrego, M., Karlin, J., McNair, L.D., Beddoes, K., 2013. Team effectiveness theory from
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H.,
industrial and organizational psychology applied to engineering student project
Wenderoth, M. P., 2014. Active learning increases student performance in science,
teams: a research review. J. Eng. Educ. 102 (4), 472–512. https://doi.org/10.1002/
engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111 (23), 8410–8415.
jee.20023.
<https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111>.
Borrego, M., Foster, M., Floyd, J., 2015. What is the state of the art of systematic review
Gao, K., Zhou, K., Liang, Z., 2021. Information-Flow-Based Safety Education (IFSE): an
in engineering education? J. Eng. Educ. 104 (2), 212–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/
indispensable perspective on safety education. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 27 (7), 472–484.
jee.20069.
https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2021.15599.
Castellucci, H.I., Bravo, G., Arezes, P.M., Lavallière, M., 2020. Are interventions effective
García-Fayos, B., Arnal, J., Sancho, M., Ruvira, B., 2020. Process safety training for
at improving driving in older drivers?: A systematic review. BMC Geriatr. 20 (125),
chemical engineers in Spain: Overview and the example of the polytechnic university
1–25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01512-z.
of Valencia. Educ. Chem. Eng. 33, 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Cavalcanti, J., Valls, V., Contero, M., Fonseca, D., 2021. Gamification and hazard
ece.2020.08.001.
communication in virtual reality: a qualitative study. Sensors 21, 4663. https://doi.
García-Peñalvo, F.J., Alarcón, H., Domínguez, Á., 2019. Active learning experiences in
org/10.3390/s21144663.
engineering education. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 35 (1B), 305–309.

14
I. Rodeghiero Neto and F.G. Amaral
Grohs, J.R., Kirk, G.R., Soledad, M.M., Knight, D.B., 2018. Assessing systems thinking: a
tool to measure complex reasoning through ill-structured problems. Think. Skills
Creat. 28, 110–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.03.003.
Gutiérrez-Martínez, Y., Bustamante-Bello, R., Navarro-Tuch, S.A., Lopéz-Aguilar, A.A.,
Molina, A., Longoria, I.A., 2021. A challenge-based learning experience in industrial
engineering in the framework of education 4.0. Sustainability 2021 (13), 9867.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179867.
Hallinger, P., 2013. A conceptual framework for systematic reviews of research in
educational leadership and management. J. Educ. Adm. 51 (2), 126–149. https://
doi.org/10.1108/09578231311304670.
Harlim, J., Belski, I., 2015. On the effectiveness of TRIZ tools for problem finding. Proc.
Eng. 131, 892–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.12.400.
Harzing, A. W., 2007. Publish or Perish. <https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-
perish>.
Hassall, M.E., Lant, P., Cameron, I.T., 2020. Student perspectives on integrating
industrial practice in risk and process safety education. Educ. Chem. Eng. 32 (4),
59–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2020.04.002.
Hernández-de-Menéndez, M., Guevara, A.V., Martínez, J.C.T., Alcántara, D.H., Morales-
Menendez, R., 2019. Active learning in engineering education. A review of
fundamentals, best practices and experiences. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 13,
909–922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00557-8.
Huang, J., Pan, W., Liu, Y., Wang, X., Liu, W., 2020. Engineering Design Thinking and
Making: Online Transdisciplinary Teaching and Learning in a Covid-19 Context.
AHFE 2020: Advances in Creativity, Innovation, Entrepreneurship and
Communication of Design 1218, 267–274. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
51626-0_19>.
Huang, Y.M., Hwang, J.P., Chen, S.Y., 2014. Matching/mismatching in web-based
learning: a perspective based on cognitive styles and physiological factors. Interact.
Learn. Environ. 24 (6), 1198–1214. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10494820.2014.978791.
International Ergonomics Association (IEA) Council, 2021. The Discipline of Ergonomics,
p. 1. http://www.iea.cc/whats/index.html, Accessed 25th Nov 2021.
Jaeger, M., Adair, D., 2016. Time pressure in scenario-based online construction safety
quizzes and its effect on students’ performance. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 42 (3), 241–251.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2016.1153042.
Jo, J., Jun, H., Lim, H., 2018. A comparative study on gamification of the flipped
classroom in engineering education to enhance the effects of learning. Comput. Appl.
Eng. Educ. 26 (5), 1626–1640. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21992.
Kiritsis, D., Bufardi, A., Mavrikios, D., Knothe, T., Szigeti, H., Majumdar, A., 2013.
A competence-based industrial learning approach for factories of the future. Educ.
Inf. Technol. 18, 331–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9247-3.
Kolus, A., Wells, R., Neumann, P., 2018. Production quality and human factors
engineering: a systematic review and theoretical framework. Appl. Ergon. 73, 55–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.05.010.
Kunrath, K., Cash, P., Kleinsmann, M., 2020. Designers’ professional identity: personal
attributes and design skills. J. Eng. Des. 31 (6), 297–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09544828.2020.1743244.
Kuo, H., Tseng, Y., Yang, Y., 2019. Promoting college student’s learning motivation and
creativity through a STEM interdisciplinary PBL human-computer interaction system
design and development course. Think. Skills Creat. 31, 1–10. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tsc.2018.09.001.
Lanzotti, A., Vanacore, A., Tarallo, A., Nathan-Roberts, D., Coccorese, D., Minopoli, V.,
Carbone, F., d’Angelo, R., Grasso, C., Di Gironimo, G., Papa, S., 2020. Interactive
tools for safety 4.0: virtual ergonomics and serious games in real working contexts.
Ergonomics 63 (3), 324–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2019.1683603.
LAPES – Laboratório de Pesquisa em Engenharia de Software, 2018. Start - State of the
Art through Systematic Review. <http://lapes.dc.ufscar.br/tools/start_tool>.
Lau, H.Y.K., Mak, K.L., Ma, H., 2006. IMELS: an e-learning platform for industrial
engineering. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 14 (1), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/
cae.20067.
Liberati, A., et al., 2009. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and
meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and
elaboration. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 62 (10), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclinepi.2009.06.006.
Lima, R.M., Mesquita, D., Coelho, L., 2017. Five Years of Project-Based Learning Training
Experiences in Higher Education Institutions in Brazil. In: Proceedings of 6Th
International Research Symposium on PBL, pp. 470–479.
Linde, K., Willich, S., 2003. How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between
reviews on complementary medicine. J. R. Soc. Med. 96 (1), 17–22. https://doi.org/
10.1258/jrsm.96.1.17.
Lo, C.K., Hew, K.F., 2019. The impact of flipped classrooms on student achievement in
engineering education: a meta-analysis of 10 years of research. J. Eng. Educ. 108 (4),
523–546. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20293.
Lombardi, D., Shipley, T.F., 2021. The curious construct of active learning. Psychol. Sci.
Public Interest 22 (1), 8–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620973974.
Lorenzis, F., Pratticò, F.G., Repetto, M., Pons, E., Lamberti, F., 2023. Immersive Virtual
Reality for procedural training: Comparing traditional and learning by teaching
approaches. Comput. Ind. 144, 103785 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compind.2022.103785.
Magana, A.J., Karabiyik, T., Thomas, P., Jaiswal, A., Perera, V., Dworkin, J., 2021.
Teamwork facilitation and conflict resolution training in a HyFlex course during the
COVID-19 pandemic. J. Eng. Educ. 111, 446–473. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jee.20450.
Marbouti, F., Shafaat, A., Ulas, J., Diefes-Dux, H., 2018. Relationship between time of
class and student grades in an active learning course. J. Eng. Educ. 107 (3), 468–490.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20221.
15
Safety Science 171 (2024) 106391
Mazzurco, A., Daniel, S., 2020. Socio-technical thinking of students and practitioners in
the context of humanitarian engineering. J. Eng. Educ. 109 (2), 243–261. https://
doi.org/10.1002/jee.20307.
McCarthy, M., Seidel, R., Tedford, D., 2004. Developments in project and multimedia-
based learning in manufacturing systems engineering. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 20 (4),
536–542.
McNeill, N., Douglas, E., Koro-Ljungberg, M., Therriault, D.J., Krause, I., 2016.
Undergraduate students’ beliefs about engineering problem solving. J. Eng. Educ.
105 (4), 560–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20150.
Menzemer, L.W., Ronchi, E., Karsten, M.M.V., Gwynne, S., Frederiksen, J., 2023.
A scoping review and bibliometric analysis of methods for fire evacuation training in
buildings. Fire Saf. J. 136, 103742 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2023.103742.
Milenković, I., Šošević, U., Simić, D., Minović, M., Milovanović, M., 2019. Improving
student engagement in a biometric classroom: the contribution of gamification.
Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 18, 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-019-00676-9.
Mkpat, E., Reniers, G., Cozzani, V., 2018. Process safety education: a literature review.
J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 54, 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2018.02.003.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D., The PRISMA Group, 2009. Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.
PLoS Med. 151, 264–269. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
Motalifu, M., Tian, Y., Liu, Y., Zhao, D., Bai, M., Kan, Y., Qi, M., Reniers, G., Roy, N.,
2022. Chemical process safety education in China: an overview and the way forward.
Saf. Sci. 148, 105643 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105643.
Mukhtar, N., Kamin, Y.B., Saud, M.S., Al Rahmi, W.M., Nordin, M.S.B., Arsat, M.B.,
Amin, N.F.B., Yahaya, N.B., 2020. Conceptual model of technical sustainability for
integration into electrical/electronic engineering programmes in nigerian
polytechnics. IEEE Access 8, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3002579.
Nanda, G., Lehto, M.R., Nof, S.Y., 2014. User requirement analysis for an online
collaboration tool for senior industrial engineering design course. Human Fact.
Ergon. Manuf. 24 (5), 557–573. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20551.
Nguyen, H., Wu, L., Fischer, C., Washington, G., Warschauer, M., 2020. Increasing
success in college: examining the impact of a project-based introductory engineering
course. J. Eng. Educ. 109 (3), 384–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20319.
Oppert, M. L., Dollard, M. F., Murugavel, V. R., Reiter-Palmon, R., Reardon, A., Cropley,
D. H., O’keeffe, V., 2022. A mixed-methods study of creative problem solving and
psychosocial safety climate: preparing engineers for the future of work. Front.
Psychol. 12, 759226. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.759226.
Oproescu, M., Iana, G., Jianu, E., Anghel, M.R., 2019. E-learning in computer-assisted
training, advantages, disadvantages and future trends. In: Proceedings of 11th
International Conference on Electronics, Computers and Artificial Intelligence
(ECAI), pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECAI46879.2019.9042063.
Oviedo-Trespalacios, O., Angarita, L.P., Maestre-Meyer, M., Correa, C.B., 2015. Building
the life-long learning competence in undergraduate engineering students with a
laboratory practice in learning curve. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 174 (12), 2021–2026.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.870.
Page, M.J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., et al.,
2021. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars
for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372 (160). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.
n160.
Page, L., Stanley, L., 2014. Ergonomics service learning project: implementing an
alternative educational method in an industrial engineering undergraduate
ergonomics course. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 24 (5), 544–556. https://
doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20544.
Pomales-García, C., Liu, Y., 2007. Excellence in engineering education: views of
undergraduate engineering students. J. Eng. Educ. 96 (3), 253–262. https://doi.org/
10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00934.x.
Prince, M., 2004. Does active learning work? A review of the research. J. Eng. Educ. 93
(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x.
Qian, Y., Vaddiraju, S., Khan, F., 2023. Safety education 4.0 – a critical review and a
response to the process industry 4.0 need in chemical engineering curriculum. Saf.
Sci. 161, 106069 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106069.
Safiena, S., Goh, Y.M., 2022. A hazard identification digital simulation game developed
based on the extended authentic learning framework. J. Eng. Educ. 111, 642–664.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20459.
Social Accountability International – SAI, 2014. Social accountability 8000 (SA8000®).
New York: SAI. Access: www.sai-int.org.
Sanchez-Lite, A., Zulueta, P., Sampaio, A.Z., Gonzales-Gaya, C., 2022. BIM for the
realization of sustainable digital models in a university-business collaborative
learning environment: assessment of use and students’ perception. Buildings 12,
971. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12070971.
Santos, C.M., Pimenta, C.A., Nobre, M.R., 2007. A estratégia PICO para a construção de
pergunta de pesquisa e busca de evidências. Rev. Latino-Am. De Enfermag. 15 (3)
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-11692007000300023.
Saurin, T., Patriarcca, R., 2020. A taxonomy of interactions in socio-technical systems: a
functional perspective. Appl. Ergon. 82, 102890 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apergo.2019.102980.
Schmidt, B., 2011. Teaching engineering dynamics by use of peer instruction supported
by an audience response system. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 36 (5), 413–423. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03043797.2011.602185.
Seo, H.J., Park, G.M., Som, M., Hong, A., 2021. Establishment of virtual-reality-based
safety education and training system for safety engagement. Educ. Sci. 11, 786.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11120786.
Sigahi, T.F.A.C., Sznelwar, L.I., 2023. From isolated actions to systemic transformations:
exploring innovative initiatives on engineering education for sustainable
development in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 384, 135659 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2022.135659.
I. Rodeghiero Neto and F.G. Amaral
Silva, R., Garcez, A., Gomes, M., Morais, A., Lima, T., Santos, F., Franco, M., 2021. Active
learning “Factory of Boxes” in the teaching-learning processes in engineering and
entrepreneurship. J. Tech. Educ. Train. 13 (3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.30880/jtet.
2021.13.03.001.
Swallow, M., Zulu, S., 2020. Students’ awareness and perception of the value of BIM and
4D for site health and safety management. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 18 (2), 414–430.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-07-2019-0174.
Thai, N.T.T., Wever, B., Valcke, M., 2017. The impact of a flipped classroom design on
learning performance in higher education: Looking for the best “blend” of lectures
and guiding questions with feedback. Comput. Educ. 107, 113–126. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.003.
Toft, Y., Howard, P., Jorgensen, D., 2003. Human-centred engineers - a model for holistic
interdisciplinary communication and professional practice. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 31 (3),
195–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(02)00197-X.
Tortorella, G.L., Cauchick-Miguel, P., 2018. Combining traditional teaching methods and
PBL for teaching and learning of lean manufacturing. IFAC PaperOnline 51 (11),
915–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.465.
Tortorella, G.L., Miorando, R., Fettermann, D., Mendoza, D.T., 2020. An empirical
investigation on learning and teaching lean manufacturing. Educ. Train. 62 (3),
339–354. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-11-2018-0232.
16
Safety Science 171 (2024) 106391
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J.
Manag. 14 (3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
Urgo, M., Terjak, W., Mondellini, M., Colombo, G., 2022. Design of serious games in
engineering education: an application to the configuration and analysis of
manufacturing systems. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 36, 172–184. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cirpj.2021.11.006.
Vieira, L.C., Amaral, F.G., 2016. Barriers and strategies applying cleaner production: a
systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 113, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.11.034.
West, C., Slatin, C., Sanborn, W., Volicer, B., 2009. Computer-based simulation in
blended learning curriculum for hazardous waste site worker health and safety
training. Int. J. Inf. Commun. Technol. Educ. 5 (1), 62–73. https://doi.org/10.4018/
jicte.2009010105.
Wilson, J.R., 2014. Fundamentals of systems ergonomics/human factors. Appl. Ergon. 45
(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.021.
Zaharim, A., Ahmad, I., Yusoff, Y., Omar, M., Basri, H., 2012. Evaluating the soft skills
performed by applicants of malaysian engineers. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 60, 522–528.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.417.
Zhang, J., Fu, J., Hao, H., Chen, N., Zhang, W., Kim, Y.C., 2018. Development of safety
science in Chinese higher education. Saf. Sci. 106, 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ssci.2018.02.034.