Application of the Case method in engineering education

Abstract: The evolving complexity of modern engineering practice requires graduates to possess not only strong technical knowledge but also advanced problem-solving, critical thinking, collaboration, and communication skills. Traditional lecture-based teaching approaches, while effective for foundational knowledge transmission, often fall short in preparing students for the ambiguous and interdisciplinary challenges they will face in the industry. The case method, a well-established pedagogical approach in fields such as business and law, offers a promising alternative for engineering education by placing students in the role of decision-makers confronted with real-world scenarios. This paper explores the application and potential of the case method in engineering curricula, highlighting its capacity to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Through the use of carefully designed cases, students engage in active learning environments where they must analyse complex engineering problems, weigh conflicting constraints, collaborate with peers, and justify their recommendations. Unlike conventional problem sets, case studies reflect the open-ended nature of industry challenges and stimulate higher-order thinking, ethical reasoning, and contextual awareness. The paper reviews a range of case study implementations across engineering disciplines, from mechanical and civil engineering to industrial and systems engineering, and examines their effectiveness in developing both technical proficiency and essential graduate attributes. Key considerations for the successful adoption of the case method, including case design, instructor facilitation techniques, and assessment alignment, are discussed in detail. The paper also reflects on observed student outcomes such as enhanced engagement, improved teamwork, and strengthened ability to transfer classroom learning to real-world engineering contexts. By fostering an educational environment that mirrors professional engineering practice, the case method prepares students to transition more effectively into the workplace, where interdisciplinary collaboration and problem-solving under uncertainty are commonplace. The study concludes that integrating the case method into engineering education represents a strategic response to industry demands for graduates who are not only technically competent but also adaptable, reflective, and equipped to lead innovation in a rapidly changing technological landscape. This research report adopts a qualitative case study approach to explore and explain the application of the Case Method in engineering education.

Keywords: Engineering, Education, Case, Knowledge, Pedagogy.

1. Introduction

"We are preparing students for jobs that don’t yet exist, using technologies that haven’t been invented, in order to solve problems, we don’t even know are problems yet."  Former U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley.  This frequently mentioned statement highlights a significant conundrum facing engineering education today.  By 2025, over half of all workers will require retraining, according to a recent World Economic Forum estimate. The most in-demand skills are critical thinking, complex problem-solving, and technology literacy (Schwab, 2015).  Despite this urgency, traditional, lecture-centric pedagogies still play a significant role in engineering programs worldwide, producing graduates who may perform well on tests but find it difficult to adapt to the uncertain, collaborative, and interdisciplinary nature of contemporary engineering practice (Brunhaver et al., 2017).

There is more than just an academic gap.  More than 60% of industry participants in a 2022 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) employer poll said that entry-level engineers lacked the communication and practical decision-making abilities needed for team-based, real-world projects (Rugarcia et al., 2000).  Technically competent graduates are frequently described as feeling overburdened in their first professional positions—not because they lack knowledge, but rather because they are not used to uncertainty, conflicting limitations, or having to defend decisions in front of a variety of stakeholders.  The goal of engineering education, which is to create engineers who use existing technology to solve issues today and create new technology to solve problems tomorrow, appears to have been lost on universities.

Engineering education is under increasing pressure to move beyond traditional knowledge transmission as the complexity of engineering practice increases in the twenty-first century due to globalization, rapid technological change, and the growing need for sustainable, interdisciplinary solutions.  Although they are good at teaching basic technical material, traditional lecture-based pedagogies have come under fire for failing to develop the wider range of abilities needed in engineering (Felder & Brent, 2009; Crawley et al., 2007).  Critical thinking, ethical reasoning, decision-making under uncertainty, and cooperative problem-solving are now necessary for these skill sets (Felder & Brent, 2009; Crawley et al., 2007).  As a result, more and more engineering educators are investigating active learning strategies like immersive design studios, flipped classrooms, and project-based learning (PBL).

Among these, the case method—a mainstay of business and legal education—has drawn notice for its capacity to replicate the intricacies of actual engineering decision-making.  The academic literature on the case method in engineering is still very dispersed, despite increased interest.  Important studies by Shuman et al. (2005) and Kolmos and de Graaff (2014) have highlighted the necessity of teaching approaches that include real-world professional difficulties in the curriculum.  Nonetheless, a large portion of the discipline still relies on conventional problem sets, which are extremely organized and devoid of the uncertainty inherent in professional engineering practice (Litzinger et al., 2011).  Case-based learning, on the other hand, places students in the role of active participants in situations for which there is no one right answer.

Technical expertise, contextual judgment, ethical issues, and teamwork must all be included in the Case Method pedagogy.  The usefulness of active learning techniques in general has been demonstrated by highly cited studies in engineering education (Prince, 2006; Jamieson & Lohmann, 2012).  Relatively few, nevertheless, have thoroughly investigated the particular affordances of the case approach in engineering settings.  Case studies are frequently used as illustrative examples rather than as the primary instructional technique when they are presented.  This highlights a significant gap in the literature: how can engineering curricula systematically adopt, apply, and evaluate the case method, which has been widely successful in other professional domains for a long time?

The following Research Question accurately captures the research gap this manuscript addresses: How does the use of the case method in engineering education improve the development of technical proficiency along with crucial professional skills like ethical reasoning, teamwork, and critical thinking?  This study aims to investigate and clarify the ways in which case-based instruction can function as a pedagogical link between engineering theory and professional practice.  The book expands on previous recommendations for educational reform that are in line with the Engineering Education Research (EER) community's emphasis on outcome-based learning and the CDIO (Conceive–Design–Implement–Operate) framework (Crawley, 2024).

It examines actual case-based learning implementations in several engineering disciplines and institutional settings using a qualitative case study technique.  This paper adds to the current body of knowledge by providing useful insights into how the case method can be operationalized to meet the changing demands of engineering education. It does this by contrasting its findings with the most frequently cited educational models and assessments, including the National Academy of Engineering's vision for the engineer of 2020 (Vest, 2005), ABET's Engineering Criteria (Passow, 2012), and empirical studies on learning-centered pedagogies (Froyd et al., 2013).

By using constructivist and contextual learning theories—particularly those of Vygotsky & Cole (2018) and Lave & Wenger (1991) in complex engineering education situations, it questions the prevalent dependence on didactic paradigms.  By doing this, the project aims to give educators practical curriculum creation tools in addition to expanding the body of knowledge regarding pedagogical innovation in engineering.  The overarching goal is to equip engineering graduates with the skills necessary to successfully negotiate the unpredictable, multidisciplinary, and morally complex difficulties they will encounter in the workplace; this is becoming more and more acknowledged as a crucial component of engineering practice in the twenty-first century.

How can engineering education be redesigned to foster both technical competence and the professional acumen necessary in contemporary, team-based, and uncertain work environments? This growing gap between the skills developed in engineering classrooms and the expectation of industry poses an urgent challenge.  In response, this study explores the use of the case method as a pedagogy based on dialogic and experiential learning, as a deliberate intervention in engineering education.  Few studies have systematically investigated how the case method can be modified and applied across engineering disciplines to support the development of higher-order skills like ethical reasoning, collaborative decision-making, and critical thinking within technical contexts, despite the fact that prior literature has looked at various aspects of active learning.

If this gap is not closed, there may be a persistent mismatch between the needs of the workforce and the talents of graduates, which could lead to underperformance by graduates, employer discontent, and a reduced ability for engineering leadership and innovation.  This is especially important in a world where engineers are expected to help with cross-sectoral problem-solving, digital transformation, and sustainable development.  Therefore, the goal of this study is to investigate how engineering schools may successfully design, assist, and evaluate the case approach in order to close the theory-practice gap.  Using a qualitative case study technique, the study looks at a variety of case-based implementations in engineering subfields, such as systems, mechanical, and civil engineering, to assess how they affect professional preparedness, student engagement, and cognitive growth.

Curriculum materials, student feedback, classroom observations, and teacher reflections are some examples of data sources.  A thorough explanation of the research approach is given after a critical analysis of recent works on the case method in engineering and related fields.  The study goes on to provide thematic findings that show how case-based learning enhances graduate qualities that are both technical and non-technical.  A scalable and context-sensitive approach to revolutionizing engineering education for the future is provided by the strategic integration of the case method, according to the conclusion, which also addresses implications for curriculum design, faculty development, and institutional policy.

2. Literature Review

Traditional lecture-based instruction is giving way to more participatory, student-centered learning strategies in engineering education.  In order to close the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application, engineering courses are increasingly adopting the Case Method, which has long been used in fields like law and commerce.  This review of the literature looks at the development, application, and effects of the Case Method in engineering education, emphasizing its advantages, difficulties, and potential study topics.

In order to improve students' critical thinking and decision-making abilities, business schools adopted the Case Method, which had its start in legal education in the late 19th century (Barry & Yadav, 2007).  The approach became popular in engineering when teachers realized how important it was for students to work on challenging, real-world issues that mirrored professional practice (Hung & Bishop, 1996).  The Case Method's pedagogical underpinnings, which prioritize contextual awareness, active learning, and the growth of higher-order cognitive abilities, are consistent with constructivist theories (Herreid, 2007).

Numerous academic fields have investigated the incorporation of the Case Method into engineering instruction.  In a mechanical engineering course, Yadav et al. (2010) used case-based training. They discovered that although students' conceptual comprehension stayed consistent with conventional approaches, their level of involvement and perceived relevance to real-world applications rose.  For a mechanical engineering design course, Raju and Sankar (1999) created a steel mill case study that improved students' comprehension of real-world engineering issues and was both beneficial and difficult.

Heydenrych and Case (2018) investigated curricular reform in chemical engineering at the University of Cape Town, integrating case studies to promote contextual learning and critical thinking.  According to their findings, students' problem-solving abilities and deeper engagement were enhanced by case-based approaches.  These studies highlight the Case Method's adaptability to various engineering specialties and its capacity to enhance the learning environment.

Engineering education seeks to develop professional abilities, such as ethical thinking, communication, and teamwork, in addition to technical knowledge.  The usefulness of case-based training in improving ethical comprehension in engineering courses was emphasized by Barry and Yadav (2010).  The Case Method promotes the investigation of ethical quandaries and the growth of moral reasoning abilities by exposing students to intricate, real-world situations.  This strategy supports the objective of developing well-rounded engineers who can handle the many facets of the engineering field.

The Case Method has advantages, but there are drawbacks to using it in engineering education.  The open-ended nature of case discussions may initially be difficult for students used to traditional lectures, and faculty may need training to create and lead successful case studies (Yadav et al., 2010).  Furthermore, evaluating student success in case-based learning settings can be challenging, thus, it's important to create suitable evaluation standards that take into account both soft skills and technical ability (Bischof-dos-Santos & Oliveira, 2020).

While existing literature demonstrates the potential of the Case Method to enhance engineering education, further research is needed to quantify its impact on learning outcomes and professional readiness (Graham, 2018). Longitudinal studies could provide insights into the long-term benefits of case-based instruction, and comparative analyses across institutions and disciplines may identify best practices for implementation. Moreover, exploring the integration of digital technologies in case-based learning could expand its accessibility and effectiveness in diverse educational settings.

3. Research Methodology

Research design

In order to examine how the Case Method aids in the development of critical professional skills and technical proficiency in engineering education, this study used a qualitative, multiple-case study approach.  When it comes to comprehending complex phenomena in their real-life contexts, where the lines between phenomenon and context are blurred, a qualitative case study technique is especially well-suited (Priya, 2021).  Five engineering courses were chosen as the multiple-case design to facilitate analytical generalization and improve the findings' robustness through cross-case comparison (Stake, 2013).  [How can the implementation of the Case Method in engineering education assist the development of both technical skill and crucial graduate traits like teamwork, ethical reasoning, and critical thinking?] This design was chosen to answer the main research question of the study.

Sampling Strategy

Five undergraduate engineering classes from three recognized universities that had incorporated the Case Method into their teaching were chosen via purposive sampling, according to Ames et al. (2019).  Cases were chosen according to a set of criteria that included disciplinary diversity, including mechanical, civil, and industrial engineering; instructors' and students' willingness to participate; the availability of learning artifacts and assessment materials; and the explicit integration of case-based learning as a fundamental pedagogical strategy.  There were 42 participants in all, including 35 final-year undergraduate students, two teaching assistants, and five course instructors.  This sample was adequate to show a range of instructional designs and learner reactions, as well as to offer situations that were rich in information (Patton, 2015).

Data Collection Procedures

To guarantee depth, validity, and consistency, data were gathered over the course of a 12-week teaching semester utilizing a methodological triangulation of semi-structured interviews, observation, and document analysis (Creswell & Poth, 2016).  Four sources of complementary data were used.  The literature on case-based teaching in professional education served as the foundation for the development of the semi-structured interview methodology (Herreid, 2007).  It lasted between forty-five and seventy-five minutes and involved five instructors and two teaching assistants.  Interviews were used as the method of data collection; they were recorded using a Sony digital recorder, verbatim transcribed, and correctness reviewed by members (Lincoln & Guba, 2001).  The study complies with the university's ethics procedure, and prior to data collection, the university issued an ethics certificate.

Using Prince's (2004) taxonomy of active learning strategies and Kolb's (2005) Experiential Learning Cycle as a reference, observations were made in class.  30 sessions were observed on average (6 each course), and group dynamics, facilitation strategies, and the level of student engagement were all documented in the thorough field notes.  Analyzing documents and artifacts from gathered resources, including case study packages, teaching plans, syllabi, assessment rubrics, anonymous student contributions, and peer review forms.  In addition to improving the quality and validity of the data gathered, the goal is to triangulate claims made in interviews and notice alignment between learning objectives and evaluation (Biggs & Tang, 2011).

Data Analysis

The six steps of Braun and Clarke's (2006) thematic analysis were used to examine the data.  Through repeated reading, a familiarization strategy is employed to enhance immersion in the data.  Open, line-by-line software coding is used for initial coding.  Codes are categorized using topic groupings such as "ethical awareness," "collaborative problem solving," and "decision-making under uncertainty."  Finding parallels and contrasts between contexts is the process of cross-case comparison.  Constructivist and contextual learning frameworks are used in interpretation to examine meaning (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Herrington & Oliver, 2000). To ensure credibility, a member is deployed for peer debriefing and checking (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). A software is used for systematic coding, memo-writing, and the construction of theme matrices for pattern identification.

4. Results

To extract ideas from a number of fundamental areas pertinent to the reform of engineering education, a thematic analysis approach was used.  The presentation of the results from this qualitative case study is in line with the goal of the study, which is to investigate the potential and use of the Case Method in engineering education, specifically its efficacy in boosting professional and technical competencies.  Data were gathered from undergraduate engineering courses (Industrial Engineering, Systems Engineering, and Engineering Ethics) at the participating universities using semi-structured interviews with instructors, focus groups, student reflective journals, peer evaluations, and classroom observations. The data were then thematically analyzed.

Student involvement significantly increased in all three case implementations.  Teachers noted that class discussions were more lively and that students were more eager to challenge presumptions, offer ideas, and work together.  The case sessions encouraged students to spend more time preparing before class and talking with peers during class than standard lectures, according to observation notes.  This supports earlier research by Barry & Yadav (2007) and Yadav et al. (2010), which discovered higher levels of motivation and engagement in case-based learning settings.  It was evident that students were more engaged in the case sessions.  As the weeks went by, even the most reserved ones started to make significant contributions.  (Teacher, course in systems engineering).

According to student comments and thoughtful diary entries, the case method promoted the growth of ethical reasoning, problem-solving, and critical thinking.  Students emphasized the importance of tackling open-ended challenges that called for balancing trade-offs, taking limitations into account, and providing evidence to support their conclusions.  "The cases felt like I was solving a real engineering problem, not just plugging numbers, but thinking about people, costs, and future consequences," the author says of the cases, in contrast to typical problem sets.  (Student, course on mechanical design).  This result supports the case method's theoretical foundation as a means of developing higher-order cognitive abilities (Herreid, 2007; Raju & Sankar, 1999).

Group discussions and team presentations were a component of the assessment in every course.  Most students stated that they were better able to listen, express their opinions, and come to an agreement when they were part of diverse teams.  Peer assessments revealed a greater understanding of group dynamics, and several students made a clear connection between this experience and what they expected from engineering workplaces in the real world.  Students frequently underlined how case studies gave their training a feeling of professional significance.  Contextualizing theoretical concepts was aided by case content, particularly when it was based on real engineering projects.  When implemented within case narratives, faculty saw that students were more likely to remember important topics.  This result supports earlier studies that found case-based approaches increase the perceived relevance of academic content (Heydenrych & Case, 2018; Hung & Bishop, 1996).

A few implementation issues were also noted.  These comprised, but were not restricted to, the following problems.  Students' initial unease with unclear problems, instructors' challenges in striking a balance between open conversation and subject coverage, and the requirement for carefully constructed examples that are suited to the course objectives and experience levels of the students.  Instructors stressed the significance of case selection and facilitation training.  Additionally, students suggested more structured instruction during early sessions and clearer expectations for participation.

5. Discussion

This study set out to explore how digital transformation, through the integration of digital twins, machine learning, and big data, is reshaping teaching and learning practices in engineering education. The findings confirm that these technologies are not only modifying how knowledge is delivered but are fundamentally altering the roles of educators and learners, the design of curricula, and the institutional structures that support them. This discussion connects these findings with existing literature, theoretical frameworks, and broader implications for policy and practice.

The results affirm that digital transformation in engineering education represents a paradigm shift from content delivery to active, participatory, and data-rich learning environments. The pedagogical shifts identified particularly the use of digital twins for simulation-based learning support Salta & Koulougliotis’ (2020) assertion that digitally mediated environments enhance experiential and constructivist learning. The TPACK framework provided a useful lens to understand this transformation. Educators who effectively integrated digital tools were those who rebalanced their pedagogical and content strategies to incorporate new technologies seamlessly. This integration reflects what Koehler & Mishra (2009) describe as "the dynamic equilibrium between content, pedagogy, and technology," which is essential for meaningful innovation in STEM education.

Furthermore, the use of machine learning and big data enabled predictive, analytical, and systems-based thinking skills that align closely with the competencies demanded by Industry 4.0 (Santos et al., 2021). Students were not only learning about engineering principles but also engaging in authentic problem-solving practices that mirror real-world professional environments. Faculty and student adaptation emerged as both a barrier and an opportunity. Consistent with the literature on organizational change (Fullan, 2007; Graham, 2018), the findings suggest that successful digital transformation depends heavily on individual and collective agency. Faculty who received institutional support, peer mentoring, and space to experiment with new tools were more confident and willing to redesign their pedagogical approaches.

Activity Theory helped to conceptualize these adaptations as part of a larger system in transition. The contradictions between traditional teaching practices and new technological tools, such as workload, assessment culture, and classroom dynamics, often produce resistance or inertia. However, when tools (e.g., digital twins), community support (e.g., training), and rules (e.g., institutional policy) are aligned, transformation becomes possible. Students, on the other hand, demonstrated increasing self-regulation and digital confidence when learning pathways were scaffolded and inclusive. This echoes findings by Bond et al. (2021), who highlight the role of feedback, personalization, and accessibility in enabling digital engagement, particularly in large and diverse engineering cohorts. The disparities in institutional readiness underscore a critical finding, i.e., technological tools alone are insufficient without strategic, pedagogically grounded implementation.

Institutions that approached digital transformation as a technical upgrade, rather than a pedagogical change, faced issues of underutilization, poor integration, and digital fatigue. Garrison & Vaughan’s (2008) work on blended learning suggests that systemic enablers, such as institutional vision, leadership, and professional learning communities, are foundational to digital innovation. This study corroborates that view, showing that alignment between digital infrastructure, curriculum goals, and educator development is essential for sustained transformation. The capability gaps identified, particularly in digital fluency among educators, point to an urgent need for continuous professional development (CPD). Without it, institutions risk creating uneven learning experiences that disadvantage both staff and students.

The case studies revealed promising practices that may serve as models for digital curriculum transformation. These are (1) integrated digital skills training aligned with disciplinary knowledge, (2) modular, interoperable learning content that adapts across platforms, (3) collaboration between faculty, instructional designers, and technologists, and (4) real-time learning analytics and feedback systems. These practices resonate with the European Commission’s Digital Education Action Plan (2021), which advocates for interdisciplinary, inclusive, and flexible learning ecosystems. They also reflect a shift toward "embedded digitality," where digital is not an add-on, but a core element of how students learn, are assessed, and demonstrate competencies (Selwyn, 2016). Crucially, these practices foster the graduate attributes identified by engineering accreditation bodies and employers: agility, problem-solving, interdisciplinary thinking, and lifelong learning (ABET, 2022; Engineers Australia, 2020).

6. Conclusions

The study's conclusions show that the Case Method is a practical and effective teaching strategy for engineering education.  The approach improves not only technical comprehension but also important graduate skills like communication, ethical reasoning, and cooperative problem-solving by reorienting the emphasis from knowledge transfer to student-centered problem involvement.  Data from the study demonstrates significant gains in student engagement, reflective thinking, and professional preparation, confirming the Case Method's applicability across a variety of engineering disciplines.  Even if there are still issues, mainly with faculty readiness and assessment design, the advantages for student learning outcomes indicate that case-based teaching should be used more widely.

Engineering graduates may continue to lack critical non-technical competencies that employers routinely recognize as essential if the current over-reliance on lecture-based training continues without the addition of real-world, contextual learning experiences.  This study adds to the increasing amount of data urging pedagogical change and provides useful advice on how to successfully incorporate the Case Method into engineering programs.  For wider use, future studies should look into scalable digital or hybrid case delivery models as well as the long-term impacts of case-based learning on professional performance.

Ethics Declaration

This research required ethical clearance due to the involvement of human participants. Ethical approval was obtained through the university's Ethics Committee in accordance with institutional guidelines and procedures. All participants provided informed consent, and the study adhered to the ethical principles outlined in the university’s research ethics policy.

AI Declaration

Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools were used to assist in improving the language and overall quality of this paper. Specifically, AI was employed to:

•           Refine grammar, sentence structure, and clarity.

•           Enhance coherence and logical flow between sections.

•           Ensure appropriate academic tone and style.

•           Format references and citations in line with academic standards (where applicable).

The core ideas, research design, analysis, and conclusions presented in this paper are entirely original and the product of the author’s intellectual effort. AI tools did not generate or interpret data, perform critical thinking tasks, or contribute to the development of scholarly arguments. The use of AI was limited to editorial support and did not compromise the integrity or originality of the work.

References

Schwab, K. (2015). World Economic Forum. Global Competitiveness Report (2014-2015).

Brunhaver, S. R., Korte, R. F., Barley, S. R., & Sheppard, S. D. (2017). Bridging the gaps between engineering education and practice. In US engineering in a global economy (pp. 129-163). University of Chicago Press.

Rugarcia, A., Felder, R. M., Woods, D. R., & Stice, J. E. (2000). The future of engineering education: Part 1. A vision for a new century. Chemical Engineering Education, 34(1), 16-25.

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2009). Effective teaching: A workshop. Chemical Engineering Education, 43(1), 15-16.

Crawley, E., Malmqvist, J., Ostlund, S., Brodeur, D., & Edstrom, K. (2007). Rethinking engineering education. The CDIO approach, 302(2), 60-62.

Shuman, L. J., Besterfield‐Sacre, M., & McGourty, J. (2005). The ABET “professional skills”—Can they be taught? Can they be assessed?. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 41-55.

Kolmos, A., & De Graaff, E. (2014). Problem-based and project-based learning in engineering education: Merging models. In Cambridge handbook of engineering education research (pp. 141-161). Cambridge University Press.

Litzinger, T., Lattuca, L. R., Hadgraft, R., & Newstetter, W. (2011). Engineering education and the development of expertise. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 123-150.

Prince, R. H. (2006). Teaching engineering ethics using role-playing in a culturally diverse student group. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 321-326.

Jamieson, L. H., & Lohmann, J. R. (2012). Innovation with impact: Creating a culture for scholarly and systematic innovation in engineering education. American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, 77, 4.

Crawley, J. (2024). Understanding the Further Education Sector: History, Challenges, and Achievements.

Passow, H. J. (2012). Which ABET competencies do engineering graduates find most important in their work?. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 95-118.

Vest, C. M. (2005). Educating engineers for 2020 and beyond. National Academy of Engineering, 36(2).

Froyd, J. E., Borrego, M., Cutler, S., Henderson, C., & Prince, M. J. (2013). Estimates of use of research-based instructional strategies in core electrical or computer engineering courses. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(4), 393-399.

Vygotsky, L., & Cole, M. (2018). Lev Vygotsky: Learning and social constructivism. Learning Theories for Early Years Practice. UK: SAGE Publications Inc, 68-73.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Learning in doing: Social, cognitive, and computational perspectives. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation, 10, 109-155.

Barry, B.E. and Yadav, A., 2007. Case-based instruction and student learning: Does the type of case matter? Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), pp.58–62.

Hung, W. and Bishop, M.J., 1996. The use of case-based instruction in engineering education: A review of the literature. Journal of Engineering Education, 85(4), pp.293–296. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.1996.tb00250.

Herreid, C.F., 2007. Start with a story: The case study method of teaching college science. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

Yadav, A., Subedi, D., Lundeberg, M.A. and Bunting, C.F., 2010. Problem-based learning: Influence on students’ learning in an electrical engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), pp.253–280. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb00062.

Raju, P.K. and Sankar, C.S., 1999. Teaching real-world issues through case studies. Journal of Engineering Education, 88(4), pp.501–508. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.1999.tb00485.

Heydenrych, J. and Case, J., 2018. Using the case method to support learning in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(2), pp.278–295. doi:10.1080/03043797.2017.1378167.

Bischof-dos-Santos, C., & Oliveira, E. D. (2020). Production Engineering Competencies in the Industry 4.0 context: Perspectives on the Brazilian labor market. Production, 30, e20190145.

Priya, A. (2021). Case study methodology of qualitative research: Key attributes and navigating the conundrums in its application. Sociological Bulletin, 70(1), 94-110.

Stake, R. E. (2013). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2001, November). Guidelines and checklist for constructivist (aka fourth generation) evaluation.

Kolb, A. Y. (2005). The Kolb learning style inventory-version 3.1 2005 technical specifications. Boston, MA: Hay Resource Direct, 200(72), 166-171.

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Train-the-trainers: Implementing outcomes-based teaching and learning in Malaysian higher education. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 8, 1-19.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Graham, R., 2018. The global state of the art in engineering education. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.