PBL Planner Toolkit: A Canvas-based Tool for Planning PBL in

Software Engineering Education

Gustavo H. S. Alexandre

1,2

and Simone C. Santos

Informatics Center - Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil

CESAR School, Brum Street, Recife, Brazil

Keywords: Educational Planning, Problem-based Learning, Canvas, Computing.

Abstract: The PBL (Problem-Based Learning) methodology provides many benefits to those who use it in teaching. In

this light, it is important to plan well when using this methodology, efficient to the purposes established by

an educator. However, there is a lack of specific tools to help educators in the task of planning their

teaching, specifically geared to the PBL approach. As a solution to this problem, this paper proposes a tool

consisting of a Canvas PBL and a set of cards intended to guide the planning of teaching in the PBL

approach. Initial results indicate a good level of acceptance of the tool, as well as indicators of its utility in

planning and adopting PBL, as shown by the data collected from the application of a survey that evaluated

the use of our Toolkit.

1 INTRODUCTION

The alignment between the professional IT profile

required by the labor market, in particular of the

software industry, with the profile of graduated

students from Computing courses has been shown to

be a great challenge (Von Wangenhein and Silva,

2009), (Schuster, 2008). The challenge of

reformulating academic curricula brings the

proposition of skills development such as problem

solving and business vision, but without

overlooking, as well, technical skills that are part of

the curriculum, such as programming and software

development tools.

The ACM/IEEE published in 2012 a report of

curricular guidelines for degree programs in

Computer Science (Draft, 2012) and, in this report,

there is a chapter entirely devoted to the

characteristics of the graduates, specifically about

skills which graduates must attain at least at an

elementary level. We can mention as example of

such skills like ability in project management;

problem solving through alternative solutions and

skills focused on oral and written communication,

collaborative and interactive work.

Nonetheless, the courses that are based on

traditional model of teaching, based on fixed

transmission of knowledge, are not succeeding to

promote effectively meaningful learning, nor

encouraging students in the acquisition of new

knowledge and skills necessary for adequate training

(Luckesi, 2011).

As an alternative to the traditional model of

education training, the teaching methodology in

Problem-Based Learning - PBL (Striegel and Rover,

2002) has been applied in different areas such as

Medicine, where it first started, and in Engineering

and Technology. The PBL method is appropriate for

education in Computing, because it significantly

unites the initial training of students with

professional practice, including professional skills in

the curriculum, thus enabling them to develop their

skills in practice (Ribeiro, 2005).

However, the adoption of the method is not

trivial. Challenges are found particularly in terms of

managing the teaching and learning process, since

PBL differs a lot from the traditional and demands

some changes, not only in the student and professor

roles, but also in the learning environment, which

needs to reflect the reality of the labor market

(Rodrigues, 2012). The methodology prescribes that

the problem, as the thrust of the teaching and

learning process, (Savery and Duffy, 1995) is real;

in other words, problems are not invented or created

for the classroom. Instead, they are relevant and

complex enough so that the educational goals

defined by educators can be attained by students.

206

Alexandre, G. and Santos, S.

PBL Planner Toolkit: A Canvas-based Tool for Planning PBL in Software Engineering Education.

DOI: 10.5220/0006676802060213

In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2018), pages 206-213

ISBN: 978-989-758-291-2

And, last but not least, assessments should be

conducted continuously to provide feedback on the

performance of students in different perspectives

such as: professors, tutors, clients and teammates

(Tuohi, 2007).

With so many aspects and stakeholders to be

considered for the adoption of PBL in a course, it

became evident that is not an easy and obvious task.

The risk of the PBL methodology implementation

not being effective is high, especially if planning and

monitoring is not conducted so as to ensure an

alignment between theory (specificities of PBL

methodology) and practice (as the methodology

happens) (Figueiredo et al., 2011). So, to mitigate

such risks and problems, the course planning in PBL

approach must be careful, thorough in a way to

contemplate all aspects inherent to the PBL

methodology cited previously, and collaborative, to

enable all the stakeholders (coordinators, teachers,

tutors and clients) to work together, each one

fomenting the work to the best of their abilities. To

achieve the desired benefits that the methodology

can provide to all involved, communication should

be aligned among all stakeholders so there is no

deviation of understanding of what is being planned

and planning must be consistent with the principles

of the PBL methodology.

2 THEORETICAL

BACKGROUND

The Theoretical and methodological background that

substantiate this research are presented in this

section.

2.1 PBL Approach and Its Principles

PBL (Problem Based Learning) is a teaching and

learning method that aims at the acquisition of

knowledge as well as at the development of attitudes

and skills through problem resolution. The PBL

methodology is based on principles (Santos,

Figueiredo and Wanderley, 2013). In a research

(Rodrigues and Santos, 2013) performed from 4 key

studies, 10 essential principles in PBL, that are a

guide to an effective approach were defined. The 10

principles are:

1. All learning activities must be anchored on a

task or problem; 2. The learner should feel that

he/she owns the problem, and is responsible for

his/her own learning; 3. The problem should be real;

4. The task and the learning environment should

reflect the reality of the professional market; 5. The

learner needs to own the process used to work out

the solution to the problem; 6. The learning

environment should stimulate and at the same time

challenge the learner’s reasoning; 7. The learner

should be encouraged to test his/her ideas against

alternative views and contexts; 8. The learner should

have the opportunity and support to reflect on the

content try, and the learning process; 9. The learning

is collaborative and multidirectional; 10. PBL is

supported by the planning process and continuous

monitoring.

In (Santos, Furtado and Lins, 2014), the authors

propose the distribution of the 10 principles in 5 key

elements to be exploited in the adoption of the PBL

methodology: problem, environment, content,

human capital and process.

2.2 Planning Teaching Process and

Learning PBL

Whoever decides to adopt the PBL method can

benefit from positive results in the learning process.

Among these results, students’ development is

heightened reasoning ability in solving problems;

the students’ stimulus in self-development of their

autonomy and proactivity; high attendance and

knowledge acquisition and elevation of the

motivation and engagement (Khairiy Ah, Mimi and

Azila, 2004).

However, adopting the PBL method is not a

simple task. It proposes a change in the paradigm of

teaching and learning that completely breaks the

traditional teaching model (Schilling, 1998). It

requires a change of attitude from students and

professors, administrative support and infrastructure

remotely appropriate, so when implementing it, all

benefits previously mentioned can be achieved

(Silva and Delizoicov, 2005). Another aspect is that

the adoption of PBL is not prescriptive, that is, there

is not a formula to be followed for the method

adoption (Maltese, 2012).

Therefore, it is essential to plan for the adoption

of PBL, in order to prevent the inadequate use of the

method, negligence of critical aspects of the

processes contained in learning methodology for its

correct implementation and proper alignment

between theory and practice throughout the learning

and teaching process.

But in the current teaching practice, the activity

of planning, in general, has not received its due

attention. Actually, it has been considered a

bureaucratic activity, too extensive, and of little help

in teaching (Fusari, 1998). Thus, this research argues

PBL Planner Toolkit: A Canvas-based Tool for Planning PBL in Software Engineering Education

207

that the adoption of the PBL approach should be

performed from a management model that is driven

by processes.

Researches such as (Santos, Montes and

Rodrigues, 2013) and (Santos, Furtado and Lins,

2014) show that the effectiveness of the adoption of

the PBL approach can be achieved when it is guided

by defined procedures and stages of planning,

implementation, monitoring and continuous

evaluation for improvements. These steps are the

same as defined in PDCA cycle (Plan, Do, Check

and Act), a tool used in planning and processes of

continuous improvement, that can be used also for

management of the process of teaching and learning

in PBL (Rodrigues, Estivalete and Lemos, 2008).

In the adoption of the PBL approach some

aspects such as flexibility and unpredictability

should be considered mainly as the impact on the

stages management and activities associated with the

teaching and learning process. Since PBL is a

process-oriented approach (Alessio, 2004) it is

fundamental that the alignment is maintained within

the stages of the PBL process to ensure its

effectiveness.

Based on the PBL principles the PDCA cycle

(Plan, Do, Check and Act) and concepts associated

with the technical 5W2H, an approach called xPBL,

was developed, which will be detailed in the

following section.

2.3 The xPBL Methodology

xPBL is a methodology that aims to align methods

and tools for managing the PBL approach to

education in fields such as Computer Science, in

order to ensure that the principles are respected in its

adoption. It was officially defined and proposed in

2014, but researches that supported its creation only

started in 2006 (Santos, Furtado and Lins, 2014). To

ensure that PBL principles that go beyond its

educational objectives are met, the methodology

xPBL is based on five elements: (1) Problem; (2)

Environment; (3) Content; (4) The human capital

and (5) Process. These elements reinforce ten

principles that were established in (Santos,

Figueiredo and Wanderley, 2013).

The elements of the xPBL methodology should

be addressed at all stages of the PDCA cycle, mainly

with regards to planning being aligned to its

implementation. To help the planning process and

guide the definition of 5 elements of xPBL, it is also

used 5W2H technique: "What?", "Who?", "Where?"

"When?", "Why?", "How?" and “How Much?”.

To help planning, the authors proposed a guide

for each element of xPBL containing 7 questions

about the 5W2H technique, plus a field called

Output, which is a suggestion of formalization after

completion of planning of each element.

3 PBL PLANNER TOOLKIT

The PBL Planner Toolkit or (PBL Toolkit, in short),

is a tool to support teaching planning with the PBL

approach in Computing courses. It is composed by a

canvas (table) divided into fields and a set of cards

that guide the completion of the canvas and of

planning. The tool is intended to be used by all

educators who wish to carry out teaching planning in

PBL Computing courses. Especially novice

professor who have low experience in conducting

educational planning, professor with low level of

knowledge in the PBL approach or both. Each

component of this tool is presented in the following

sections. A digital version of PBL Toolkit is

available at http://www.pblplanner.com.

3.1 PBL Canvas

The PBL Canvas consists of a table divided into 11

fields. The definitions of the fields that form the

PBL Canvas originated from the concepts of the

PDCA methodology and xPBL. Its structure was

inspired on the Project Model Canvas (PM Canvas)

(Finocchio Junior, 2014). Each field has a color and

an icon to facilitate its identification. The model of

the PBL Canvas is presented in Figure 1 below.



Figure 1: PBL Canvas.

For each field, a color and a different icon were

assigned, in order to facilitate its distinction, as well

CSEDU 2018 - 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

208

as to ease the association with the PBL Cards. Each

field represents a set of aspects to be considered in

planning. These aspects are described below.

Table 1: The canvas fields and their aspects.

Icon/Field Aspects

F1 - Course

Course contextualization defined

items such as name of course,

duration, type, target audience;

prerequisites for study are described

in this field.

F2 -

Objectives

Goal setting for students’ learning,

goals related to motivation,

engagement and students’ attendance

as well as the overall performance of

the group. Definition of goals related

to employability and professional

performance of student.

F3 - Success

Indicators

Student, methodology and course

definition of indicators of success.

F4- Problem

Capitation, systematic description,

submission, approval of the proposal

of the problem and change of choice

in the matter.

F5 -

Environment

Definition of equipment, software and

materials necessary for

implementation of course; definition

of the physical and virtual space.

F6 - Human

Capital

Definition of roles and the team that

will be part of the course.

F7 - Content

Description of the contents of a

module. Indication of sources to

support or deepening of knowledge.

F8 -

Assessment

Learning

Assessment that covers various

aspects such as: content, customer

satisfaction, process of resolution of

the problem, result of problem

solving, interpersonal skills,

performance.

F9 - Processes

Description of learning process based

on resolution of problems and process

of dividing students into groups.

Definition of timetable, professors

and students assessment schedule,

delivery of materials requested by the

Icon/Field Aspects

F10 -

Schedule

teachers, assessment of the

methodological objectives and

assessment of course quality.

F11 - Risks

Identification of risks and threats that

may compromise the success of the

course.

Many aspects have to be considered in the PBL

Canvas. Therefore, thinking of a way to help the

user during the course planning, it was decided to

create of a set of cards, containing all those

described aspects.

3.2 PBL Cards

40 cards were created and distributed among the 11

fields of PBL Canvas. Each of the 40 cards has the

same structure. The front of the car has basically

three pieces of information from the PBL Canvas:

the name of the field; the color and icon that

connects to the field. This was done to facilitate the

association among cards and their respective fields

in the PBL Canvas. Therefore, all cards from the

same field would have the same color and the same

associated icon.

Figure 2 shows the back of the cards’ structure,

which contains six important pieces of information:

name and icon of the related field to the Canvas;

name, card identifier and a card description; the

questions that guide the completion of the PBL

Canvas and examples of answers to the questions.

Lastly, the artifacts that can be generated when

planning.

Figure 2: PBL Card Verse Example.

The question item contains queries that have

been defined to promote reflection in aspects that are

necessary for the planning. In formulating questions

the technique used was the 5W2H. However, the

queries that compose the cards are not restricted to

those that are part of the technique, allowing queries

that contribute best to the aspect to be planned.

On the other hand, the examples item represents

possible responses to each one of the questions made

PBL Planner Toolkit: A Canvas-based Tool for Planning PBL in Software Engineering Education

209

in the referred item. The purpose is to illustrate, for

those who carry out the planning, what kind of

response is expected for each question.

The artifact item refers to the field Output from

the proposed guide in article (Santos, Furtado and

Lins, 2014), which defines the xPBL methodology.

As well as in the guide, this item represents a

suggestion of a planned aspect formalization or

support tool during its implementation.

3.3 How to Use the PBL Toolkit

Course planning with the PBL approach using the

toolkit is divided into 3 phases: Planning, Revising,

and Sharing, described below.

3.3.1 Planning

Planning is subdivided into 3 stages that must be

performed at least once each one. To carry out this

stage it is important that there is participation of the

people who will act as teachers, tutors and

coordinator.

The stage 1 in completing the PBL Canvas is the

introduction to planning. It is composed of the fields

Course, Objectives and Indicators of Success, in this

order. These fields define the context of the course

to be planned as well as the objectives and goals to

be achieved. Planning participants should answer

questions 1 through 9 and set responses in the

corresponding fields. After setting the answers to

chart 9, step 1 of planning is finalized.

Stage 2 corresponds to the fields that come from

the xPBL methodology: Problem, Environment,

Human Capital, Content and Learning Assessment.

These are the central elements of planning and are

more closely related to the PBL method. It is from

the planning of these fields that the methods and

tools for managing the PBL approach in Computer

teaching will be aligned. The process of filling in is

identical to the one in step 1 starting on card number

10 through 33.

Finally, stage 3 completes the planning with the

Process, Schedule and Risks fields. These fields

together are responsible for defining the learning

process based on problem solving to be followed,

class schedules, scheduling of assessments and

deliveries, as well as identifying possible risks that

threaten the success of the course as a whole. The

letters to fill this field range from number 34 to 40

and after letter number 40, have been answered the

completion of PBL Canvas will be completed.

Figure 3 shows the finished PBL canvas.

Figure 3: PBL Canvas after completed planning.

Table 2 below presents some questions and

answers regarding the planning of a course in

Computer Science.

Table 2: Example of questions and answers of planning.

Fields Some example of questions and answers

Area of Activities?

A: Software Engineering.

Work schedule and duration of course?

A: 60 hours in 4 months.

What non-technical skills (personal,

management and business)?

A: Leadership, teamwork, initiative,

communication, innovation, business

processes.

What information should be included in the

description of the problem?

A: Mastery of the problem, public target,

needs of the clients, importance of the

problem.

Who will be the client?

A: Company XYZ.

In what way will he/she be involved?

A: In the workshop of opportunities,

evaluations of satisfaction and final

presentation.

What criteria will be used to evaluate the

content?

A: Understanding the basic concepts of the

projects, the life-cycle, processes and critical

factors.

What are the criteria for splitting up the teams?

A: Level of training, skills, professional

experience and close affinities.

What learning process should be followed?

A: The 4-stage Barrows PBL (Proposing,

Discussing, Resolving and Assessing).

CSEDU 2018 - 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

210

3.3.2 Revising

The purpose of the review phase is to check issues

that have raised questions during planning as well as

some aspect that has not been fully answered. It is

also important to make sure that the dependencies

between the fields are properly aligned. For example

the objective fields with those of evaluations in

which the first defines the objective and in the

second how to measure if it has been reached.

3.3.3 Sharing

The final phase aims to build an action plan that

should list all tasks and artifacts planned during the

planning phase. The action plan should contain, in

addition to the task list and artifacts, the deadline for

creation, the status of the task or artifact, and who is

the owner. With the creation of the action plan, a

version of the teaching plan is generated (baseline),

which can undergo adaptations and improvements

throughout its implementation.

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Next we present the first results obtained with the

assessments of the PBL Planner Toolkit. The

strategy adopted for assessment was to evaluate the

Toolkit by its constitutive features and evaluate the

use of the Toolkit as a education planning tool in the

PBL approach.

The methods used to obtain the first impressions

were a survey based on expert opinion along with

workshop. The survey consists of an online

questionnaire in which we adopted the Likert scale

five propositions with the following possible values:

-2, -1, 0, +1, +2, indicating: disagree totally,

partially disagree, neutral, partially agree and totally

agree, respectively. In this research, the results are

obtained through the collection of perceptions and

feedback of professors who already have experience

in planning in education PBL approach.

In all, six aspects were evaluated: Usability,

Functionality, Design, Understanding, Work

Collaborative and Satisfaction. The objective of this

assessment for every assessed aspect and some

questions is described below:

Usability: To assess the level of the tool usage.

Q1 – It is easy to use the PBL Canvas Toolkit for

planning.

Functionality: To assess the compliance of the

PBL planning use adoption.

Q2 - I found the PBL Planner Toolkit appropriate

as a tool for course planning.

Design: To evaluate forms and legibility of the

Toolkit.

Q8 - The cards texts are legible.

Understanding: To assess the degree of ease

understanding and comprehension of the rules for

the tool usage.

Q10 - The Cards are easy to understand its use.

Collaborative Work: To evaluate aspects of

communication, cooperation and collaboration

among those involved in the planning.

Q12- PBL Planner Toolkit has enabled a better

COLLABORATION during planning.

Satisfaction: To evaluate the perception of

satisfaction and pleasure in the use of the Toolkit.

Q15 - I recommend the use of PBL Planner

Toolkit for planning.

The results were obtained through the realization

of 3 educational planning workshops in 3 higher

education institutions in the State of

Pernambuco/Brazil with professors from

Information Systems and Computer Science courses.

Each workshop had a total average duration of 3

hours and consisted of the concepts presentations

and the PBL approach and the presentation of the

PBL Canvas Toolkit which was explained to what

was proposed and how to use it. Soon after the

presentations, the professors present in the workshop

were divided into groups of up to 5 members and

were asked to collaboratively carry out a teaching

plan for a course of their choice using the PBL

Canvas Toolkit.

After the planning completion the questionnaire

was sent through a link, so the professors could

answer the evaluative questions about the Toolkit. In

total, 34 professors participated in the workshops

and 14 of these answered the questionnaire.

These 14 teachers represent significantly the

target audience of PBL Toolkit. With respect to the

professors’ profile, there were 5 doctors, 5 masters

and 4 specialists; 10 professors with average

teaching experience time of 4.5 years and 4

professors with an average of 23.5 years of

experience; 4 professors work in public institutions

and 10 in private institutions. Regarding knowledge

of the PBL approach, 7 professors claim to possess a

low knowledge, 5 professors with average

knowledge and 2 professors with high knowledge.

The responses are consolidated in Table 3.

PBL Planner Toolkit: A Canvas-based Tool for Planning PBL in Software Engineering Education

211

Table 3: Responses of the professors.

Aspects Questions -2 -1 0 1 2

Usability Q1 0 2 3 3 6

Functionality

Q2 0 0 2 3 9

Q3 0 1 4 5 4

Q4 0 0 3 2 9

Q5 0 0 2 2 10

Q6 1 0 2 2 9

Design

Q7 0 1 2 3 8

Q8 0 2 3 4 5

Understanding

Q9 0 2 2 3 7

Q10 0 2 2 3 7

Collaborative

Work

Q11 0 0 2 4 8

Q12 0 0 2 3 9

Q11 0 0 2 2 10

Satisfaction

Q14 0 0 3 0 11

Q15 0 0 2 1 11

The Usability aspect had only a single question

(Q1) which served to measure the professors'

perception of the ease of use of the Toolkit. Six

professors totally agreed (42.86%) that it is easy to

use the Toolkit to plan and other 3 said that they

partially agree (21.43). Adding these two scales we

will have 64.29% of the total of respondents which

indicates a good usability index.

On the Functionality aspect, overall, 59% of the

professors indicated that they fully agree with the

questions that evaluate the aspect. This indicates that

the Toolkit has suitable characteristics and features

for educational planning activities (Q2) such as

completeness (Q4), reflective thinking (Q5) and

better structuring and sequencing of activities (Q6).

However, question 3 (Q3), that evaluates the

flexibility of the Toolkit for changes did not obtain a

score compatible with the other issues regarding the

Functionality aspect. We believe that the flexibility

was somewhat compromised due to dependencies

that are created between the fields of the Canvas,

such as the planning is being carried out. For

example, the relationship between objectives and

indicators of success. It is likely that having the

removal or alteration of an item from one of these

fields will need to reflect the change in the other

field as well.

The Design aspect only evaluated characteristics

of the cards. Question 7 (Q7) verified the

appropriateness of the card size, and obtained 8

professors who totally agreed (57.14%) and another

3 who partially agreed (21.43%). This added gives

us an approval percentage of 78.57%. However,

question 8 (Q8) which evaluated the readability of

the texts of the cards obtained 64.28% of approval,

adding the professors who totally agreed (35.71%)

and partially (28.57%). It is understood that because

the cards are still a prototype and paper type is still

not definite, the approval percentage could increase,

once readability is improved.

The Understanding aspect also has two

questions. The first (Q9) evaluated how clear the

instructions were and the use of the Toolkit and the

second question (Q10) evaluated how easy it was to

understand how to use the cards. Both questions

obtained the same response reaching 72% approval

adding professors that totally agree (50%) with those

who partially agreed (22%).

The penultimate aspect assessed was the

Collaborative Work containing three questions. The

first one (Q11) evaluated the communication

promoted by the Toolkit and obtained 57.14% of the

professors totally agreeing and another 28.57%

partially agreeing. This resulted in 85.71% of

approval. The following questions (Q12) that

evaluated the collaboration and (Q11) that evaluated

the cooperation obtained the same indices of

question 11, that is, 85.71% of the professors

confirming the contribution of the Toolkit in the

aspect of collaboration and cooperation during

planning.

The last aspect assessed was Satisfaction through

two questions. The first question (Q14) evaluated

the pleasure of the professors in using the Toolkit

and obtained 78.57 % approval. Same index for the

next question (Q15) that evaluated whether

professors would indicate the Toolkit to other

professors who wished to use it to carry out

planning.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The PBL Planner Toolkit presented in this article

aims to assist educators who wish to conduct

educational planning in the PBL approach through a

Canvas and a set of 40 cards that guide the filling of

the Canvas. The relevance of the proposition of a

tool to support teaching planning in PBL lies in the

shortage of specific tools for this purpose, especially

in the PBL approach. The diversity of aspects to be

considered in teaching planning with PBL reinforces

the need of support tools in this task so that the

planning is carried out in the best possible way.

The proposal for the creation of a specific canvas

for the PBL approach using xPBL as the core

methodology was to unite the positive characteristics

provided by the Canvas technique such as

collaboration, holistic vision, communication, and to

CSEDU 2018 - 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

212

safely preserve PBL principles through a PBL

methodology focused on Computer Science.

The initial results of the PBL Planner Toolkit

validations indicate very positive possibilities

regarding the productivity and usability of its use

for the teaching planning in PBL approach. As a

point of improvement, the evaluations indicate

adjustments regarding the relation between the fields

and the readability of the card texts. A more

thorough assessment of the aspect of usability is also

needed. On the other hand, the positive aspects

highlight the Collaborative Work aspect, since the

educational planning in the PBL approach must be

carried out so that all the stakeholders involved

participate. And so it is important to have

communication, collaboration and cooperation

because those are the three pillars for collaborative

work and the contribution given by the Toolkit and

professors who participated was acknowledged.

REFERENCES

Alessio H. (2004). “Student Perception about Performance

in Problem Based Learning”, Journal of Scholarship of

Teaching and Learning, Vol. 4, N. 1, pp. 25 – 36.

Draft, Strawman. Computer Science Curricula 2013. 2012.

Disponível em: http://www.acm.org/education

/CS2013-final-report.pdf>. Acesso em 23 de agosto de

2017.

Figueirêdo C. O et al. Using PBL to Form Software Test

Engineer. In: IASTED International Conference on

Computers and Advanced Technology in Education,

2011, London. Computers and Advanced Technology

in Education (CATE 2011). Calagary, Canada : Acta

Press, 2011. v. 1. p. 029-35.

Finocchio Júnior, José. Project Model Canvas:

gerenciamento de projetos sem burocracia. Elsevier

Brasil, 2014.

Fusari, J. C. O Planejamento do trabalho pedagógico:

algumas indagações e tentativas de respostas.

Salvador, 1998. (Série Ideias).

Khairiyah, M. Y.; Mimi, H. H.; Azila, N. M. A. A first

attempt at problem based learning in process dynamics

and control course for chemical engineering

undergraduates at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. In:

5th Asia-Pacific Conference on Problem-based

Learning: In Pursuit of Excellence in Education. Held

in Kuala Lumpur. 2004.

Luckesi, Cipriano Carlos. Avaliação da aprendizagem

escolar: estudos e proposições. Cortez, 2011.

Maltese, R. (2012). Project Based Learning, 25 Projects

for 21st Century Learning, Dog Ear Publishing.

Ribeiro, L. R. C. A aprendizagem baseada em problemas

PBL: uma implementação na educação em engenharia

na voz dos atores. 2005. 209f. Tese (Doutorado) –

Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos.

Rodrigues, A. and Santos S. C. (2013), “A System

Approach to Managing Learning based on the Revised

Bloom´s Taxonomy to Support Student Assessment in

PBL”, FIE, Oklahoma, EUA.

Rodrigues, A. N. Planejamento e Acompanhamento do

Ensino na Abordagem PBL em Sistemas de Gestão de

Aprendizagem. 2012. Dissertação (Mestrado em Pós-

Graduação em Engenharia da Computação) -

Universidade de Pernambuco. Recife/PE.

Rodrigues, C. M. C; Estivalete, V. F. B.; Lemos, A. C. F.

V. A Etapa Planejamento do Ciclo PDCA: Um relato

de Experiências Multicasos, 2008.

Santos S. C., Figuerêdo, C. O., Wanderley, F. (2013),

“PBL-Test: a Model to Evaluate the Maturity of

Teaching Processes in a PBL Approach”, FIE,

Oklahoma, EUA.

Santos S. C., Furtado F., Lins W. “xPBL: a Methodology

for Managing PBL when Teaching Computing”, FIE,

Madrid, Spain, 2014.

Santos S. C., Monte A., Rodrigues, A. (2013), “A PBL

Approach to Process Management Applied to

Software Engineering Education”, FIE, Oklahoma,

EUA.

Savery, J. R; Duffy, T.M. (1995), Problem Based

Learning: An instructional model and its constructivist

framework. Educational Technology, 1995, p. 31-38.

Schilling, Cláudia. Domínios do conhecimento, prática

educativa e formação de professores: a construção do

conhecimento escolar. São Paulo-SP: Ática, 1998.

Schuster, Margia Elisa. Mercado de trabalho de tecnologia

da informação: o perfil dos profissionais demandado.

2008.

Silva, W. B. & Delizoicov, D.(2005) Aprendizagem

baseada em problemas e metodologia da

problematização: Perspectivas epistemológicas,

diferenças e similitudes. In: V Encontro Nacional de

Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 2005, Bauru.

Encontro Nacional De Pesquisa Em Educação Em

Ciências. Caderno de Resumos. Bauru: ABRAPEC,

2005. v.5.

Striegel, A. And Rover, D. T. Problem-based learning in

an introductory computer engineering course, In: 32nd

FRONTIERS IN EDUCATION CONF., Proc. 32nd

Frontiers in Education Conf., Boston, MA, v. 2, p.

FIG7–FIG12, 2002.

Tuohi, R. Assessment in Problem Based Learning

connected with IT Engineering Education.

International Conference on Engineering Education &

Research, 2007.

Von Wangenheim, Christiane Gresse; SILVA, D. A. Qual

conhecimento de engenharia de software é importante

para um profissional de software?. Proceedings of the

Fórum de Educação em Engenharia de Software, v. 2,

p. 1-8, 2009.

PBL Planner Toolkit: A Canvas-based Tool for Planning PBL in Software Engineering Education

213