Navigating the Learning Landscape: A Case Study of Multisubject

Problem-Based Learning in Computer Engineering Degree

Urtzi Markiegi

1 a

, Alain Perez

1 b

, Xabier Valencia

1 c

, Felix Larrinaga

1 d

, I

nigo Aldalur

2, 1 e

and Ekhi Zugasti

2, 1 f

Electronics and Computing Department, Mondragon Unibertsitatea, Arrasate-Mondragon, Spain

Computer Languages and Systems Department, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), San Sebastian, Spain

{umarkiegi, aperez, xvalencia, ﬂarrinaga}@mondragon.edu, {inigo.aldalur, ekhi.zugasti}@ehu.eus

Keywords:

Problem-Based Learning, Computer Engineering, Higher Education, Multisubject.

Abstract:

This paper examines the adoption of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in the degree of Computer Engineering

at the Faculty of Engineering. The study presents the degree structure and the curriculum that integrates com-

petencies aligned with the European Higher Education Area, promoting both technical and transversal skills.

The case study focuses on the third year of the Computer Engineering degree, highlighting subjects, lan-

guages, faculty involvement, and PBL phases. The semester project, a central element, spans multiple weeks,

emphasizing interdisciplinary group work and progressive skill development. The semester coordinator plays

a pivotal role in managing and evaluating these projects, aligning with continuous and global assessment prin-

ciples. The academic assessment model includes continuous feedback and aims to enhance students’ academic

and personal growth.

The results indicate positive perceptions of PBL effectiveness, emphasizing active engagement, interdisci-

plinary skills, heightened motivation, and comprehensive skill development. Participants express a desire for

enhanced resources and support systems, particularly in training, to optimize PBL implementation. As this

educational model continues evolving, obtained insights advocate for ongoing adjustments to ensure the con-

tinued efﬁcacy of PBL methodologies in preparing students for the challenges of the 21st century workplace.

1 INTRODUCTION

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is a student-centered

teaching approach in which students learn by de-

veloping solutions to real-world problems (Savery,

2015). PBL has been shown as an effective approach

for fostering deep learning, critical thinking, collab-

oration, problem-solving, creativity, and teamwork,

equipping students with the skills necessary for suc-

cess in the workplace (Savery, 2015). It is particularly

well-suited for Science, Technology, Engineering and

Mathematics (STEM) education, where students can

apply their knowledge and skills to solve real-world

problems. In recent years, there has been a growing

interest in PBL as educators recognize the need to pre-

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0897-6190

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6200-589X

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9974-1367

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1971-0048

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4840-8884

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8506-5695

pare students for the challenges of the 21st century

(Edens, 2000).

The McMaster University is the pioneer in imple-

menting the PBL methodology. In 1969 the ﬁrst pro-

motion of the medical school of this university devel-

oped real-cases in small groups with interdisciplinary

subjects, very few lectures and no exams (Servant-

Miklos, 2019a). During this period, this University

carried out four curricula that were implemented at

McMaster, each of which had a different emphasis

on the philosophy, pedagogy, and para-pedagogical

manifestations of PBL (Neville et al., 2019). Five

years later, Maastricht University adopted McMas-

ter’s model, and they implemented the PBL method-

ology in the medical school. Maastricht University

lecturers adopted some changes to improve the expe-

rience, which consisted of tutor training, the introduc-

tion of the structure of the 7-step method, and the cre-

ation of a skills’ laboratory (Servant-Miklos, 2019b).

Some years later, two Danish Universities adopted the

PBL methodology, Roskilde University and Aalborg

University. The ﬁrst applied the PBL methodology

686

Markiegi, U., Perez, A., Valencia, X., Larrinaga, F., Aldalur, I. and Zugasti, E.

Navigating the Learning Landscape: A Case Study of Multisubject Problem-Based Learning in Computer Engineering Degree.

DOI: 10.5220/0013259500003932

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2025) - Volume 2, pages 686-696

ISBN: 978-989-758-746-7; ISSN: 2184-5026

for ”Basic Education” (2-year studies) for the degrees

of Humanities, Social Sciences or Natural Sciences.

The studies were fully developed by projects based

on problems and developed in a participatory man-

ner (Andersen and Kjeldsen, 2015). When the Danish

government approved a regulation so that in universi-

ties 50% were master classes and 50% projects, the

University of Aalborg implanted the PBL methodol-

ogy in 1974 (Kolmos et al., 2004). In this context,

at the beginning of the century, our university carried

out an analysis of the graduate proﬁle with compa-

nies in the region. As a result of this analysis, it was

concluded that the graduates had high levels of tech-

nical performance in the different engineering ﬁelds

of the faculty. However, among the opportunities for

improvement, management, teamwork and, above all,

communication skills were identiﬁed. After analyz-

ing the different existing methodologies to enhance

the competences to be improved, the Aalborg model

was identiﬁed as a reference. The adoption of the

model was carried out progressively during the fol-

lowing courses in the different degrees of the Faculty

of Engineering. After 20 years of experience, we con-

tinue optimizing and adapting the model to the new

learning context. We need to assess these enhance-

ments to conﬁrm that we are heading in the right di-

rection. To investigate the efﬁcacy of PBL model in

Computer Engineering education, our study is cen-

tered around the following four key research ques-

tions:

• RQ1: How do our students perceive our PBL

model in relation to the learning process?

• RQ2: How do our students perceive our PBL

model in relation to the motivation?

• RQ3: How do our students perceive our PBL

model in relation to the transversal skills?

• RQ4: How do our students perceive our PBL

model in relation to the resource appropriate-

ness?

2 RELATED WORK

This section presents a collection of academic papers

on various topics related to PBL. These papers discuss

the potentials and challenges of integrating interdisci-

plinary collaboration into higher education, as well as

the cognitive processes related to student comprehen-

sion in PBL. Additionally, they present case studies

and frameworks for analyzing and facilitating large-

scale interdisciplinary projects based on PBL.

In general, there are several works that address the

PBL effectiveness in learning, tackling the opportuni-

ties or strengths of the learning from different point of

view (dos Santos et al., 2020) (O’grady, 2012).

Multiples studies discuss the extra competences

the students acquire, which is directly linked with our

RQ3; for instance, Carmo-Silva et al. (Carmo-Silva

et al., 2018) highlight that students can acquire tech-

nical and transversal competences highly relevant for

employment through interdisciplinary projects. Still

talking about new competences the students acquire,

King-Dow et al. (Su and Chen, 2022) discuss the

development of STEM cognitive skills through PBL

among students at Taiwan’s University of Technol-

ogy. Zhao et al. (Zhao and Wang, 2022) focus on

the impact of PBL on student development in mid-

dle school chemistry classes. The study explores how

PBL inﬂuences students’ motivation, social skills, and

collaborative abilities. It provides insights into the

effectiveness of PBL in enhancing students’ learn-

ing experiences, particularly in the context of science

education. Kuo et al. (Kuo et al., 2019) measured

the creativity part of the PBL both, creativity on the

whole improved and the four facets of creativity (ﬂu-

ency, elaboration, ﬂexibility, and originality) also im-

proved signiﬁcantly on engineering students, this ﬁnal

work is also linked with our RQ2, as they also mea-

sure the motivation.

There are also several works that talk about the

importance of interdisciplinary PBLs and how they

help students to acquire global competences which

are linked to our RQ1; Bertel et al. (Bertel et al.,

2022) discuss the integration of interdisciplinarity in

education for sustainable development, proposing a

framework for analyzing the potentials and challenges

of interdisciplinary framing in large-scale projects at

Aalborg University. The interdisciplinarity is also

tackled as competence enhancement, Tolmos et al.

(Tolmos et al., 2021) or Stone (Stone et al., 2018)

propose a PBL approach combining multiple subjects,

emphasizing the importance of STEM education and

its through PBL. There are also great works that tackle

the description of incorporation of the PBL in a com-

plete semester as the case of The Industrial Engineer-

ing and Management (IEM) program at the Univer-

sity of Minho (Alves et al., 2019) which is linked to

our RQ4. They incorporate PBL into its curriculum,

involving six courses in the ﬁrst semester of the ﬁrst

year. They also present results of questionnaires in-

volving the complexity of managing and supporting

student teams, assessing their work, and creating a

cohesive learning environment, but from the point of

view of the instructor.

Linked to our RQ2 and still talking about the inter-

disciplinary PBLs, Corbacho et al. (Corbacho et al.,

2021) explores the development and evaluation of in-

Navigating the Learning Landscape: A Case Study of Multisubject Problem-Based Learning in Computer Engineering Degree

687

terdisciplinary courses in higher education. They de-

velop a framework for interdisciplinary course de-

sign based on constructivism, academic motivation,

and social and managing psychology. They imple-

ment this framework in six interdisciplinary courses

taught to undergraduate students from multiple disci-

plines. Student feedback from course evaluations and

reﬂective writing exercises indicate that the interdis-

ciplinary courses are effective in developing four key

skills and attitudes: teamwork, conﬁdent exploration

of ideas, personal growth, and relevant perspectives.

The courses also foster academic motivation, particu-

larly in the areas of success and caring. The authors

conclude that interdisciplinary courses can be valu-

able additions to higher education, but require careful

design and implementation to maximize their impact.

Finally, we also found interesting works related to

more general ideas but still linked to our RQs, for in-

stance Navas et al. (Navas et al., 2020) focus on a

partnership since July 2017 involving students from

SIT (Japan), KMUTT (Thailand), and FCT NOVA

(Portugal) in a global PBL event at FCT NOVA which

is linked to motivation (RQ2). In the paper by Dol-

mans et al. (Dolmans et al., 2001), the authors focus

on how group work can be effectively integrated into

PBL. They emphasize the importance of designing ef-

fective cases for a PBL curriculum, which is related to

RQ4 and RQ3. The paper likely discusses strategies

for creating engaging and challenging problems for

group work, ensuring these problems are aligned with

the learning objectives of PBL. The authors might

also address how to facilitate effective group dynam-

ics and collaborative problem-solving within the PBL

framework.

Reviewing these works in PBL underscores the

need of adopting the most suitable PBL methodolo-

gies and evaluate the implementation with the stu-

dents. While existing studies highlight the potential of

PBL in fostering interdisciplinary competencies and

enhancing student engagement, they also identify sig-

niﬁcant challenges. These include the difﬁculties in

implementation, variable effects on different student

groups, and the logistical complexity of large-scale

projects. Our work delves deeper, offering insights

into how students perceive multidisciplinary PBL as

a beneﬁcial and immersive learning approach.

3 CASE STUDY

3.1 Faculty Framework

The Faculty of Engineering adopts the PBL method-

ology (Kolmos et al., 2004) with the aim of devel-

oping both technical and transversal skills in the cur-

ricula of its degree programs. The PBL method-

ology began to be devised and implemented pro-

gressively at the faculty in 2002, marked by close

collaboration with experts from Aalborg University,

who provided valuable guidance for the conception

of semester projects with a multidisciplinary nature.

Over these decades, a rich variety of experiences have

been accumulated in diverse degrees, as well as nec-

essary adaptations to, among others, harmonize with

the new European Higher Education Area (EHEA).

Currently, the Computer Engineering degree in-

corporates the PBL methodology, characterized by

the following features:

Semester Project. The six semesters corresponding

to the ﬁrst three courses exhibit a remarkably simi-

lar structure in their conception. Each semester be-

gins with a ﬁrst phase, also known as the lecture pe-

riod, which includes the teaching of subjects in lec-

ture format, as well as exercises and laboratory prac-

tices. This is followed by a second phase, known as

the semester project period. In this second phase,

the PBL methodology is implemented, which facili-

tates the execution of multidisciplinary group projects

that encompass several subjects simultaneously. It

is important to note that the semester project in-

volves all the compulsory subjects corresponding to

the semester in question, generally around ﬁve sub-

jects. During this stage, the schedule is exclusively

dedicated to the semester project, leading to the tem-

porary suspension of regular classes. The duration

of the semester project varies according to the aca-

demic year, being four weeks in the ﬁrst year (equiva-

lent to 20% of the semester), six weeks in the second

year (representing 30% of the semester), and ﬁnally

eight weeks in the third year (constituting 40% of the

semester). This gradual temporary approach seeks to

provide a progressive learning experience adapted to

the level of the students at each stage of their train-

ing. Therefore, the space given to the project in the

curriculum is relevant. And taking the duration of the

project in the third year as a reference, each student

dedicates an average of 200 hours per semester to the

project.

Semester Coordination. Lecturers, who teach to-

gether during the same semester, form the team of

semester lecturers. In this context, one of the teach-

ers is designated as the Semester Coordinator, who

assumes the main responsibility for the integral man-

agement of the semester. This teaching team takes

on particular importance in the effective administra-

tion of the semester. The responsibilities assigned

to the team of lecturers includes the task of design-

ing, monitoring and carrying out the evaluation of the

CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

688

semester project. In addition, the team of lecturers

also assumes responsibility for coordinating the lec-

ture period. This period, which precedes the semester

project, requires careful planning and organization to

ensure a smooth and effective transition between the

different phases of the academic semester. In order to

make the management of these lecturer teams possi-

ble, the faculty has provided them with resources and

responsibilities. For example, the lecturer team is re-

sponsible for managing the timetables of the teaching

period subjects and is also endowed with a budget to

make the necessary purchases and investments for the

development of the students’ projects.

Competencies and Learning Outcomes. The de-

grees were designed on the basis of competencies

and learning outcomes, in accordance with the guide-

lines established in the EHEA. Each technical com-

petency was thoroughly elaborated on the basis of a

speciﬁc set of learning outcomes. In the interest of

fostering a holistic approach to the educational pro-

cess, the deﬁnition of competencies and learning out-

comes that were common to all undergraduate de-

grees within the faculty was undertaken, with special

emphasis on the development of transversal compe-

tencies. In this context, together with the ”traditional”

methodologies, the adoption of active methodologies

was encouraged, with the aim of enriching and diver-

sifying the learning environment. This integrative ap-

proach made it possible to establish a closer connec-

tion between the speciﬁc competencies of each sub-

ject and the transversal skills that are fundamental for

the overall development of the student in the academic

and professional environment.

Continuous and Global Assessment. The evalua-

tion model was revised according to the new com-

petency model and a continuous and global evalu-

ation was established. This continuous evaluation

model involves the progressive evaluation of students

through various evaluation milestones, which include

exams, individual work, group work and the semester

project, among others. Throughout the semester, stu-

dents monitor their performance, obtaining informa-

tion about their results through various tests and activ-

ities, as well as through the semester project. The re-

sults obtained in the ﬁrst semester are considered pre-

liminary and once the second semester is concluded,

a joint meeting of the two lecture teams of the course

is held. During this meeting, a detailed analysis of

the students’ performance is made with the purpose

of carrying out an individualized global evaluation.

Focusing on the assessment of the semester project,

both technical and transversal competences are as-

sessed through a combination of individual and group

assessment activities. Individual contributions are as-

sessed through written reports, oral defenses, ongo-

ing monitoring by the instructor, and a peer assess-

ment exercise where students evaluate each other’s

work. Group contributions are assessed according

to the nature of the deliverable (report, video, devel-

oped artifacts, etc.). The assessment activity is guided

by the assessment rubrics designed by the lecturers.

These rubrics incorporate the learning topics of the

different subjects involved in the semester, ensuring

compliance with the curriculum. Students rely on

these rubrics to set project objectives and to measure

their progress over the course of the project. In addi-

tion, the ongoing nature of the evaluation involves the

preparation of speciﬁc feedback for each student, pro-

viding them with valuable information on their aca-

demic performance, and offering guidance for their

continued development. This holistic evaluative ap-

proach seeks not only to measure students’ academic

progress, but also to provide them with meaningful

feedback that contributes to their constant growth and

improvement.

Methodological Fundamentals Subject. Consider-

ing the relevance of the semester project in the design

of the degrees, it is essential that students correctly

internalize the PBL methodology for the development

of the semester project. In order to achieve this objec-

tive, the undergraduate degrees of the Faculty of Engi-

neering incorporate a compulsory subject in the ﬁrst

year of the academic programs. This subject plays

a crucial role in establishing the foundations of the

methodology, covering fundamental aspects such as

teamwork skills, learning-to-learn, problem-solving,

effective oral and written communication, and knowl-

edge of the engineering proﬁle adapted to each spe-

ciﬁc degree. The course not only lays the theoret-

ical foundations of the PBL methodology but also

addresses essential practical aspects. These include

the complete process of the PBL methodology, from

problem identiﬁcation to project completion. This

process involves key steps such as the deﬁnition of the

problem, the identiﬁcation of possible solutions, and

the selection and development of prototypes. In this

way, the course constitutes a comprehensive frame-

work that, in addition to providing the necessary the-

oretical knowledge, also guides students in the prac-

tical application of the PBL methodology, a funda-

mental experience for the forthcoming performance

throughout their semester projects.

3.2 Course Under Study

The academic semester is structured into two distinct

blocks, each characterized by a unique mode of in-

struction.

Navigating the Learning Landscape: A Case Study of Multisubject Problem-Based Learning in Computer Engineering Degree

689

3.2.1 First Block: Academic Lectures

The initial block of the semester is dedicated to aca-

demic lectures conducted by instructors. During this

phase, students attend lectures delivered by faculty

members, covering theoretical concepts, principles,

and essential knowledge relevant to the subjects of

study. These lectures are conducted in a traditional

classroom setting, providing students with founda-

tional knowledge and understanding necessary for the

subsequent phase of the semester.

3.2.2 Second Block: Problem-Based Learning

The latter part of the semester transitions into a

PBL approach in which students engage in hands-on

project work. Students apply the theoretical knowl-

edge acquired during the academic lectures to real-

world scenarios. This phase emphasizes active par-

ticipation, collaboration, and practical application of

concepts. Limiting the scope of the project to each of

the semesters.

Within the PBL phase, students work in teams

to conceptualize, design, implement, and present

projects aligned with the course objectives. In the

absence of direct lectures, students take on greater

responsibility for their learning, guided by project

guidelines, rubrics, and occasional consultations with

instructors as needed.

This shift in instructional methodology from aca-

demic lectures to PBL allows students to develop

critical thinking, problem-solving and collaboration

skills in a practical context. It also fosters auton-

omy and self-directed learning, as students navigate

the project’s various phases under minimal direct su-

pervision from instructors.

By incorporating both traditional lectures and

PBL into the semester structure, students beneﬁt from

a balanced educational experience that combines the-

oretical knowledge with practical application, prepar-

ing them for the challenges and opportunities in the

ﬁeld of Computer Engineering.

This work focuses the study on the third year of

the Computer Engineering degree course of the 2022-

2023 academic year. The characteristics and data of

the course studied are described below.

Subjects and Languages. The ﬁrst semester of the

third year is composed of 5 compulsory subjects:

Web Engineering, Operating Systems, Software Engi-

neering, Human-Machine Interface and Project Man-

agement. While in the second semester, another 5

compulsory subjects are involved: Web Engineering

II, Concurrent and Distributed Systems, Information

Systems, Security and Artiﬁcial Intelligence. The ﬁrst

semester subjects are all in English, while the second

semester subjects are taught in the regional language

except for Web Engineering II and Concurrent and

Distributed Systems, which are taught in Spanish.

Dates, Students and Faculty. In the 2022-2023 aca-

demic year, 24 students were enrolled in the third

course. On the faculty side, 5 lecturers were involved

in the ﬁrst semester and another 5 lecturers in the sec-

ond semester (one per subject). On the one hand the

lecturers answer questions from teams in those sub-

jects in which they are experts and on the other hand

each lecturer is the mentor of a group, supporting

them methodologically in the achievement of the ob-

jectives.

Projects Phases. With regard to the semester projects

developed, the nine phases established in the method-

ology were carried out meticulously:

1. Project preparation: in this phase, the team of

lecturers teaching compulsory subjects in the

semester is responsible for preparing the semester

project, including the planning of the main aca-

demic milestones, the purchasing of materials and

the preparation of the rubric. Special attention

needs to be paid to the project rubric, consisting

of the assessment criteria for the technical and

transversal competences that the students must ac-

quire. Despite the rubric’s limitations on certain

technological and methodological aspects, it en-

ables the development of projects that can tackle

a broad spectrum of challenges. This preparation

phase usually takes place months before the start

of the semester project.

2. Launch of the project (open project): Students

are free to create the teams of ﬁve members for

the semester project. Project statements are con-

ceived in an open format, allowing each group

to identify a problem that particularly motivates

them. This freedom of choice is conditioned

by the requirement to develop competencies de-

scribed in the project evaluation rubrics. To fur-

ther spark their creativity and stimulate the gen-

eration of impactful ideas, presentations from en-

trepreneurship experts are incorporated at the be-

ginning of the project.

3. Problem analysis and approach: During this

phase, each team conducts a detailed analysis of

the selected problem. To this end, different as-

pects of the problem are analyzed, such as the

context, the causes, the affected people or sys-

tems, and the background. Once the problem has

been analyzed, it is clearly identiﬁed and delim-

ited. Next, each team of students reviews the

rubric provided to ensure that with the identiﬁed

problem, it will be possible to develop all the re-

quired learning areas. Table 1 presents part of the

CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

690

project rubric. Speciﬁcally, the assessment cri-

teria for the subject Software Engineering (as an

example of technical competence) and the assess-

ment criteria for the video the students prepare to

present the project (as an example of transversal

competence).

4. Select and investigate solutions: Based on the de-

limited problem, each student team conducts re-

search on potential existing solutions, ensuring

rigorous justiﬁcation of the sources consulted. In

addition, they deﬁne their own solution, empha-

sizing the distinctions from the identiﬁed exist-

ing solutions and highlighting the added value of

their chosen approach. Each team of students val-

idates with the lecturers who are experts in each

subject that the proposed solution will allow them

to develop the competences required in the rubric.

Once the problem analysis and solution proposal

phases have been completed, the results are pre-

sented in a public defense to the team of lecturers,

who provide valuable feedback on the proposal.

5. Experimentation and follow-up: This phase, the

most extensive of the project, involves the student

team building a prototype that reﬂects the charac-

teristics of the solution and validates the proposal.

Throughout this stage, each team makes several

presentations to the team of lecturers to expose

the technological proposal of the project and the

different milestones of progress achieved. These

intermediate milestones are evaluated by means of

corresponding feedback.

6. Project closure and deliverables: Each project

team concludes the developments and delivers to

the teaching team the results obtained, together

with the project report. These materials are ana-

lyzed and evaluated by the team of lecturers based

on the previously established rubrics.

7. Presentation and Defense: Students use various

resources to present the project, addressing as-

pects such as the description of the problem to be

solved, market analysis, the proposed solution and

its added value. The presentation usually includes

a demonstration of the prototype developed, as

well as the conclusions and future lines identiﬁed.

In addition, an individual defense of the degree of

learning obtained thanks to the project is carried

out.

8. Evaluation and Final Feedback: The team of

teachers carries out an exhaustive analysis of the

results obtained both at group and individual level

in the project, elaborating a ﬁnal feedback for the

students. The degree of acquisition of technical

competences is assessed individually through the

defense. While different group aspects, such as

the product, presentations, technical report and

teamwork are assessed with group marks. In order

to be eligible for a weighted mark that takes into

account both parts (individual and group) it is nec-

essary to pass the individual defense. The results

of the grades, as well as the formative feedback on

the various evaluated aspects, are communicated

in a meeting between the mentor and the student

team.

9. Semester Closure (PBL Review): The teaching

team examines the strengths and possible areas

of improvement of the project, considering the

lessons learned for the planning of the next year’s

project.

During the PBL phase of the semester, students

undertake a variety of innovative projects aimed at ap-

plying their theoretical knowledge to real-world chal-

lenges. Examples of such projects include the op-

timization of land use for labor purposes based on

artiﬁcial intelligence, the development of an intelli-

gent service for receiving climatological and geolog-

ical alerts, the creation of an analyzer and optimizer

for sleep patterns with user recommendations, the im-

plementation of an intelligent assistant for diagnostic

procedures using radiography, the design of an intel-

ligent Parking system for more efﬁcient guidance and

pricing calculations, the development of a strategic

system for analyzing Formula 1 races, and a proposal

for improving bus transportation in small communi-

ties. These projects not only showcase the students’

technical skills but also demonstrate their ability to

address practical issues with creativity and innova-

tion, thereby preparing them for the complexities of

real-world engineering challenges.

4 EVALUATION

To assess the inﬂuence of interdisciplinary PBL, we

conducted an evaluation focusing on four Research

Questions: learning process, motivation, transversal

skills, and resource appropriateness. That evaluation

was performed using a questionnaire.

4.1 Questionnaire

The construction of the questionnaire for this study

involved a comprehensive review of existing literature

to identify and adapt relevant questions from previous

research studies. We selected 4 papers (Mihic and Za-

vrski, 2017) (Kim, 2015) (Usmani et al., 2011) (As-

saf, 2018) as a baseline for the questions. We grouped

Navigating the Learning Landscape: A Case Study of Multisubject Problem-Based Learning in Computer Engineering Degree

691

Table 1: Illustrative part of the rubric used in the evaluation of the ﬁrst semester project, where the levels of a technical

competence (corresponding to the subject Software Engineering) and the levels of part of the transversal competence of

communication (corresponding to the video of the project produced by the student team) are provided.

Subject Evaluated Concepts Insufﬁcient Pass Remarkable Outstanding

Software Engineering

(Technical)

Know how to apply

techniques and tools

for veriﬁcation

and validation

Very initial testing process:

(very low coverage,

very bad structure of testcases,

very low quality in testcases,

not usage of mocks

for unit testing)

No use of SonarQube

and SonarLint

Initial testing process:

(low coverage,

bad structure of testcases,

low quality in testcases,

not usage of mocks

for unit testing)

Use of SonarQube

and SonarLint

Acceptable Cyclomatic

Complexity, Code Smells,

number of Bugs, number of

Vulnerabilities and medium

Test coverage (good structure

of testcases, good quality

in testcases, some usage

of mocks for unit testing

and some refactoring)

Low Cyclomatic Complexity

and Code Smells, 0 Bugs,

0 Vulnerabilities and very

high Test coverage (good

structure of testcases,

high quality in testcases,

usage of mocks for

unit testing, refactoring)

Know how to apply

conﬁguration management

techniques and tools

No use of any continuous

integration tool (Jenkins, GitLab)

No use of git + no correct

branching strategy

Use of any continuous

integration tool (Jenkins, GitLab)

to run tests automatically after

merge in the appropriate branch

Use of git + branching strategy

Use of any continuous

integration tool to automate

SonarQube analysis (basic)

Use of any continuous

integration tool

to automate SonarQube

analysis (advanced)

Video

(Transversal)

Format and duration

Does not respect

the required format (sale)

It respects the required

format (sale), but the

video exceeds or falls

short for more than 60s.

It respects the required

format (sale), but

the video exceeds or

falls short by more than 30s.

Respect the required

format (sale),

and the total time

of the video is met.

Content

Less than 5 sections

of the requested script

appear in the video.

Respect the script,

the 5 requested

sections appear.

Respect the script,

the 5 requested

sections appear,

although the timing

is not correct.

Respect the script,

the 5 requested

sections appear

in correct timing.

Sale

Not convincing messages

and people,

no sale is achieved.

The messages are mostly

convincing and the sale is

generally correct, but there

are parts of the video that are

slow or uninteresting.

The messages are

convincing, but people

do not convey ”naturalness”

and/or ”conﬁdence.”

The messages are

convincing and so are the

people (naturalness = be

yourself and conﬁdence).

Correctness

Many spelling and/or

grammatical errors

in the voice-overs,

and poor video quality.

The result is insufﬁcient.

There are more than 4

spelling and/or grammatical

mistakes in the locutions, the

video quality in more than

2 sections is not good.

But the result is interesting.

There are less than 4

spelling and/or

grammatical mistakes in

the phrases, the quality

is generally good. But there

are some poor quality sections.

There are no spelling

or grammatical mistakes

in the phrases.

The overall quality

of the video is excellent.

Originality

Little originality,

the result is unattractive.

The product and the sale

made are not original,

but the result is good.

The product shows

a certain originality.

The work demonstrates

the use of new ideas

and insight.

The video and the sale

mode are very original

and creative.

CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

692

their questionnaire items according to their alignment

with the focal aspects of our investigation. Subse-

quently, items were selected and adapted from vari-

ous sources to ensure the questionnaire’s suitability

in probing the targeted dimensions pertinent to our re-

search focus on PBL. While several papers provided

valuable insights and questionnaire items, a speciﬁc

study was omitted from consideration due to its dis-

tinct focus, which did not fully align with the speciﬁc

dimensions and objectives delineated for our investi-

gation into PBL. This process aimed to ensure that

the questionnaire utilized in our study precisely ad-

dressed the intended facets of PBL experiences under

scrutiny, fostering a robust and tailored instrument for

data collection. The list of the questions grouped by

the 4 key areas can be found in table 2.

Student perception surveys can serve as a for-

mative assessment tool for instructors and curricu-

lum developers. Feedback from students can iden-

tify strengths and weaknesses in PBL implementa-

tions, allowing educators to make informed adjust-

ments to enhance the learning experience (Wallace

et al., 2016).

4.2 Participants

Out of the 24 students, the group consisted of 23

males and one female. The age range of the partic-

ipants was 20–24 years, reﬂecting the usual age of

third-year Computer Engineering students.

4.3 Procedure

The participants answered the questionnaire during

their individual defenses of the 2nd semester, on June

16th. A brieﬁng on the questionnaire was conducted

ﬁrst, and participants had 20 min to answer all the

questions afterward.

5 RESULTS

The comprehensive breakdown of each question orga-

nized by the deﬁned four areas, along with its corre-

sponding mean value and standard deviation, is pre-

sented in Table 2. Figure 1 show the distribution of

results of the questionnaire.

The internal consistency of the questionnaire was

evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha coefﬁcient, yield-

ing a high value of 0.936, indicating a substantial level

of internal consistency among the survey items mea-

suring satisfaction within the sample of 24 students.

However, it is essential to acknowledge the poten-

tial limitation associated with the small sample size,

which may restrict the generalizability of the ﬁnd-

ings.(Tavakol and Dennick, 2011).

The overall mean rating of the questionnaire was

3.70/5.

Participants indicated a strong inclination towards

perceiving PBL as an effective educational approach

(Q1, Q6; Mean: 4.00-4.17). The responses suggest

that PBL fosters an environment propitious to active

engagement and interdisciplinary knowledge acquisi-

tion (Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7; Mean: 3.61-4.00). More-

over, it encourages students to transition from passive

learning to becoming active processors of informa-

tion, stimulating cooperative problem-solving (Q2,

Q3, Q7; Mean: 3.74-4.09). The low standard devi-

ation values (0.51-0.99) suggest that there is a high

degree of consensus among students regarding their

responses to the ”Learning Process” questions.

While participants generally acknowledged a

moderate increase in motivation due to PBL (Q8, Q9,

Q10, Q11; Mean: 3.26-3.91), there were indications

that a prolonged PBL period or extension might pos-

itively impact motivation (Q12; Mean: 3.48). Choos-

ing PBL theme (problem to be solved) and being

multi-subject appeared to contribute signiﬁcantly to

enhancing motivation levels (Q9, Q10; Mean: 3.26-

3.52). Apart from question 11, which speciﬁcally ad-

dressed the level of commitment (Std Dev: 0.45), the

standard deviation values for the ”Motivation” ques-

tions (Std Dev: 1.38-1.62) indicate a lower degree of

consensus among students regarding their responses.

Responses also shed light on the broader skill

set development facilitated by PBL. Participants per-

ceived improvements in decision-making, teamwork,

time management, and communication skills (Q14,

Q15, Q17, Q18; Mean: 3.39-4.26). Notably, PBL’s

effectiveness in preparing individuals for real-world

applications and enhancing their ability to manage

complex tasks was highlighted (Q13, Q16; Mean:

3.87-4.17). The freedom and creative space offered

during PBL projects seemed to encourage innovative

thinking, critical evaluation, and effective planning

(Q19; Mean: 3.52). In the ”Transversal Skills” sec-

tion of the questionnaire, there was a relatively lower

degree of consensus among students regarding their

responses to the question about improving the abil-

ity to speak in front of people (Std dev: 1.40), but a

high consensus on the rest of the questions (Std Dev:

0.47-0.90).

Feedback on the resources and support systems re-

lated to PBL implementation revealed moderate satis-

faction levels (Mean: 2.87-3.61). While participants

generally acknowledged the expertise of tutors (Q20,

Q21; 3.57-3.61), there were indications of a need for

more comprehensive training before PBL implemen-

Navigating the Learning Landscape: A Case Study of Multisubject Problem-Based Learning in Computer Engineering Degree

693

Table 2: Results of the Questionnaire.

Question Mean Std Dev

Learning Process

1 PBL is a more effective learning method. 4.17 0.51

2 PBL makes you more active in cooperative learning for problem-solving. 4.09 0.54

3 PBL helps you to move from being a passive learner to an active whole-life

learner.

3.74 0.84

4 PBL helps you take responsibility for your own learning. 3.91 0.90

5 PBL students decide for themselves the learning goal. 3.61 0.99

6 PBL helps you acquire interdisciplinary knowledge. 4.00 0.73

7 PBL helps you become an active processor of information. 3.87 0.75

Motivation

8 PBL has increased your motivation for studying. 3.35 1.60

9 Establishing the PBL theme increases your motivation. 3.52 1.53

10 A multi-subject PBL increases your motivation. 3.26 1.38

11 Working on projects increased your level of commitment. 3.91 0.45

12 PBL period should be extended. 3.48 1.62

Transversal Skills

13 PBL better prepares you to work in industry. 4.17 0.51

14 PBL has improved your teamwork skills. 4.26 0.47

15 PBL has improved your decision-making skills. 3.91 0.90

16 PBL has helped you identify weak points for improvement. 3.87 0.66

17 PBL has improved your ability to speak in front of people. 3.70 1.40

18 PBL has increased your ability to manage time effectively. 3.39 0.52

19 During the PBL period, you have been able to plan, apply, evaluate and be more

creative with greater freedom.

3.52 0.81

Resource

Appropriateness

20 You are satisﬁed with the experts’ knowledge on the subjects. 3.61 1.25

21 You are satisﬁed with the help you have received from your tutor. 3.57 1.08

22 You received adequate training on PBL prior to its implementation. 3.30 1.04

23 You are satisﬁed with the evaluation methods. 2.87 1.66

Figure 1: Distribution of results for each of the 23 questions of the questionnaire.

tation (Q22; Mean: 3.30) and that evaluation method

could be improved (Q23; Mean: 2.87). The consensus

on the questions about ”Resource Appropriateness”

was low (Std dev: 1.04-1.66).

In conclusion, the study’s ﬁndings underline the

effectiveness of PBL in promoting active learning, in-

terdisciplinary knowledge acquisition, and skill de-

velopment. While it signiﬁcantly contributes to mo-

tivation, skill enhancement, and overall learning ex-

perience, improvements in resource appropriateness,

particularly in prior training and evaluation methods,

could further enhance the efﬁcacy of PBL implemen-

CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

694

tations. These insights advocate for continued reﬁne-

ment and better structuring of PBL programs to har-

ness their full potential in fostering holistic learning

experiences.

6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE

WORK

The implementation of PBL at the Faculty of Engi-

neering stands as a testament to its evolution from pi-

oneering institutions like McMaster, Maastricht and

Aalborg Universities. Our PBL methodology, a

distinctive feature of the curriculum, demonstrates

a progressive and immersive learning experience.

The semester coordinator’s role in managing these

projects underscores the commitment to holistic stu-

dent development. Continuous and global assessment

principles, including ongoing feedback and meticu-

lous evaluation, contribute to a dynamic educational

environment that goes beyond traditional academic

metrics.

As the study zooms into the speciﬁc case of the

third year in the 2022-2023 academic year, the de-

tailed examination of subjects, languages, faculty in-

volvement, and project phases provides a microcosm

of the broader PBL implementation. This case study

illuminates the meticulous planning, execution, and

evaluation involved, showcasing the university’s com-

mitment to providing a rich, immersive, and effective

educational experience.

Our ﬁndings afﬁrm the efﬁcacy of PBL in empow-

ering learners to take ownership of their educational

journey, setting their learning goals, and cultivating

a comprehensive understanding across subjects. Re-

garding motivation, our results suggest that reﬁning

PBL structures to further boost motivation could yield

substantial beneﬁts in student engagement and com-

mitment to the learning process. Moreover, ensur-

ing adequate training and support for both tutors and

students could potentially enhance the overall expe-

rience and outcomes of PBL initiatives. Considering

the constraints posed by the scope of this case study

and the dynamic nature of student experiences, it is

advisable to pose this question periodically to observe

and trace its evolutionary trajectory.

In our continuous efforts to enhance our educa-

tional approach, we are exploring avenues to rein-

force our curriculum with the SDGs, demonstrating

our commitment to global sustainability and respon-

sible citizenship. Our focus is on promoting environ-

mental and social consciousness through educational

practices.

Additionally, we are actively working towards a

more robust integration of corporate visions within

our PBL. Collaborations with local companies will

enable us to bring authentic, real-world challenges

into our classrooms, fostering a dynamic learning en-

vironment that directly addresses industry needs. This

strategic alignment not only will enhance the practical

relevance of our programs but also will strengthen the

bridge between academia and the professional land-

scape.

Moreover, to empower our students with a deeper

understanding of their progress and skills develop-

ment, we are placing a greater emphasis on self-

assessment within the PBL process. This ap-

proach will encourage students to take ownership of

their learning journey, promoting reﬂection and self-

directed growth for a more comprehensive educa-

tional experience.

Furthermore, the lowest score in the questionnaire

was related to the evaluation method (Q23), showing

the difﬁculty of evaluating this kind of work. For the

future, we have identiﬁed the need to improve the sys-

tem for continuous evaluation and feedback through-

out the PBL process.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was carried out by the Software and

Systems Engineering research group of Mondragon

Unibertsitatea (IT519-22), supported by the Depart-

ment of Education, Universities and Research of the

Basque Government.

REFERENCES

Alves, A., Moreira, F., Le

ao, C., Pereira, A., Pereira-Lima,

S., Malheiro, M., Lopes, S., and Oliveira, S. (2019).

Industrial engineering and management pbl imple-

mentation: An effortless experience? volume 9, page

117 – 127.

Andersen, A. S. and Kjeldsen, T. H. (2015). Theoretical

foundations of ppl at roskilde university. The Roskilde

model: problem-oriented learning and project work,

pages 3–16.

Assaf, D. (2018). Motivating language learners dur-

ing times of crisis through project-based learning:

Filming activities at the arab international university

(aiu). Theory and Practice in Language Studies,

8(12):1649–1657.

Bertel, L. B., Winther, M., Routhe, H. W., and Kolmos, A.

(2022). Framing and facilitating complex problem-

solving competences in interdisciplinary megapro-

jects: an institutional strategy to educate for sustain-

able development. International Journal of Sustain-

ability in Higher Education, 23(5):1173 – 1191.

Navigating the Learning Landscape: A Case Study of Multisubject Problem-Based Learning in Computer Engineering Degree

695

Carmo-Silva, S., Dias, L. S., Pereira, G., Fernandes, N. O.,

Alves, A. C., and Lima, R. M. (2018). Designing and

implementing interdisciplinary projects in a systems

engineering master programme. volume 8, page 408

– 416.

Corbacho, A. M., Minini, L., Pereyra, M., Gonz

alez-

Fern

andez, A. E., Ech

aniz, R., Repetto, L., Cruz, P.,

Fern

andez-Damonte, V., Lorieto, A., and Basile, M.

(2021). Interdisciplinary higher education with a fo-

cus on academic motivation and teamwork diversity.

International Journal of Educational Research Open,

2. Cited by: 8; All Open Access, Gold Open Access.

Dolmans, D. H., Wolfhagen, I. H., van der Vleuten, C. P.,

and Wijnen, W. H. (2001). Solving problems with

group work in problem-based learning: hold on to the

philosophy. Med. Educ., 35(9):884–889.

dos Santos, S. C., Reis, P. B., Reis, J. F., and Tavares, F.

(2020). Two decades of pbl in teaching computing: a

systematic mapping study. IEEE transactions on edu-

cation, 64(3):233–244.

Edens, K. M. (2000). Preparing problem solvers for the

21st century through problem-based learning. College

Teaching, 48(2):55–60.

Kim, M. J. (2015). Students’ satisfaction and perception

of problem based learning evaluated by questionnaire.

Kosin Medical Journal, 30(2):149–157.

Kolmos, A., Fink, F. K., and Krogh, L. (2004). The Aal-

borg PBL model: progress, diversity and challenges.

Aalborg University Press Aalborg.

Kuo, H.-C., Tseng, Y.-C., and Yang, Y.-T. C. (2019). Pro-

moting college student’s learning motivation and cre-

ativity through a stem interdisciplinary pbl human-

computer interaction system design and development

course. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31:1 – 10.

Mihic, M. and Zavrski, I. (2017). Professors’ and students’

perception of the advantages and disadvantages of

project based learning. Int. J. Eng. Educ, 33(6):1737–

1750.

Navas, H. V., Hasegawa, H., Watanabe, D., Khantachawana,

A., and Alves, A. C. (2020). Global pbl: Cross-

cultural educational project for engineering students.

volume 10, page 319 – 326.

Neville, A., Norman, G., and White, R. (2019). Mcmaster

at 50: lessons learned from ﬁve decades of pbl. Ad-

vances in health sciences education, 24:853–863.

O’grady, M. J. (2012). Practical problem-based learning in

computing education. ACM Transactions on Comput-

ing Education (TOCE), 12(3):1–16.

Savery, J. R. (2015). Overview of problem-based learn-

ing: Deﬁnitions and distinctions. Essential readings

in problem-based learning: Exploring and extending

the legacy of Howard S. Barrows, 9(2):5–15.

Servant-Miklos, V. F. (2019a). Fifty years on: A retro-

spective on the world’s ﬁrst problem-based learning

programme at mcmaster university medical school.

Health Professions Education, 5(1):3–12.

Servant-Miklos, V. F. (2019b). A revolution in its own right:

How maastricht university reinvented problem-based

learning. Health Professions Education, 5(4):283–

293.

Stone, W. L., Pierce, R. S., and Kaul, S. (2018). Promoting

innovation in a junior-level, multidisciplinary, electro-

mechanical design course. volume 2018-June.

Su, K.-D. and Chen, H.-Y. (2022). The effectiveness of

cross-disciplinary in problem-based learning: An in-

novative implementation of students’ bakery perfor-

mances in the context of challenge for stem educa-

tion. In Huang, Y.-M., Cheng, S.-C., Barroso, J.,

and Sandnes, F. E., editors, Innovative Technologies

and Learning, pages 355–363, Cham. Springer Inter-

national Publishing.

Tavakol, M. and Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of cron-

bach’s alpha. International journal of medical educa-

tion, 2:53.

Tolmos, P., Cid-Cid, A. I., Guede-Cid, R., and Mart

ın, H.

(2021). Problem based learning approach to train pre-

service teachers in mathematics education: An expe-

rience. page 356 – 365.

Usmani, A., Sultan, S. T., Ali, S., Fatima, N., and Babar,

S. (2011). Comparison of students and facilitators’

perception of implementing problem based learning.

JPMA-Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association,

61(4):332.

Wallace, T. L., Kelcey, B., and Ruzek, E. (2016). What

can student perception surveys tell us about teaching?

empirically testing the underlying structure of the tri-

pod student perception survey. American Educational

Research Journal, 53(6):1834–1868.

Zhao, Y. and Wang, L. (2022). A case study of student de-

velopment across project-based learning units in mid-

dle school chemistry. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res,

4(1).

CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

696