Abstract:

Context:
In the teaching-learning process related to advanced topics of structural design, it is a common practice to develop spreadsheets (SS) to simplify the numerical routines involved in the calculation of the different elements that conform a structure, following the guidelines of codes applicable in each region or country. This reduces significantly the time used in the numerical routine of the calculations and gives a time gain for more specialized processes such as distribution and location of structural elements, applicable load systems and structure analysis and the final evaluation of mechanical elements applied on every structural element such as slabs, beams and girders, columns, foundations, etc.

Purpose:
The objective of this paper is to present the learning results by means of evaluations and applied polls to students of different courses of structural design in different areas, for Civil Engineering and Architecture majors.
A. The evaluations will be applied through traditional exams and quizzes, with design situations where the students are allowed to use SS and other design situations where they are not allowed to use these SS. With the results, we can build a comparative scheme to be studied and analyzed.
B. The polls will be applied on-line using Google Forms, where they will be asked perception questions related to performance and learning comparing the possibility of use SS versus the restrictions on their use. Examples of these questions are:
a) Did you develop and program your own SS or use SS developed by others?
b) In the change of routine scenario, are you able to modify the SS process to apply change of variables, formulas, and concepts?

Approach:
The design process of structural elements is ruled by codes and handbooks that set specific processes and requirements to evaluate properties and characteristics that provide strength and stiffness, these processes might involve highly elaborated numerical routines, so it is quite common the use of spreadsheets developed to facilitate these procedures. The common status is that the professor guides the students in the development and programming of their own SS in order that they know the input data and the output values and the results of modifying each value of the input data in every step of the process, nevertheless, there are a lot of external sources available to obtain SS developed by others as a freeware. The use of these SS developed and programmed by others, have restricted access to the code and it is not possible to establish the inside calculation process or generate process modifications when they are needed due to code or regulatory changes. They are only a mechanization of the process without the possibility of interpretation or modification applying a personal criterion.
When a tool with these capacities is available, the advantages are immediate in time saving in the numerical process and a precision level error free, but we lose the analysis capacity by using the output values without any further analysis of the physical meaning or interaction with other structural elements. We become only data users instead of structural designers.
We will evaluate if the use of these tools is a knowledge and learning support tool developing structural design competencies, or if it is a tool to make numerical routines easier but losing analysis capacity and abilities and the mathematical and physical meaning of each data in the structural behavior of every element.

Keywords:

Education practice trends and issues, Undergraduate Education, Engineering Education, Critical Thinking and Problem Solving.