MYFORSCRUM: A New Digital Tool for Implementing Forscrum in

Educational / Training Contexts

Carlos Luís

and Maria José Marcelino

Department of Informatics Engineering (DEI) of the University of Coimbra, Portugal

Keywords: Agile Methodology, Usability, Accessibility, Learnability, Adults Education.

Abstract: This paper presents the development of an application (App) designed to support the management of training

processes through the integration of the forScrum methodology. The App’s primary objective is to facilitate

collaborative work between learners and teachers/trainers, promoting efficient organization of training cycles

(sprints) and fostering autonomy and self-regulation. The Design Thinking methodology was applied to create

the prototype, enabling a Learner-Centered Design approach that allowed for a comprehensive understanding

of stakeholders' needs, resulting in an innovative, effective, and efficient solution. This methodology

comprised six-stage: empathy, definition, ideation, prototyping, testing and implementation, ensuring that the

final product is functional and aligned with learner expectations. The paper also discusses the challenges

encountered during the design and development process, as well as the implemented functionalities and the

evaluation of usability, accessibility, and learnability within the learning ecosystem.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the 21st century, characterized by the rapid

proliferation of applications and the accelerated pace

of information technologies, as well as the

development of Industry 4.0, it is imperative to adopt

agile methodologies, “e.g., Scrum, eXtreme

Programming (XP), Kanban, and Dynamic Systems

Development Method (DSDM)", among others

(Cubric, 2013) (Abbas et al., 2008) in education and

training 4.0. These agile methodologies are based on

iterative and incremental processes and have four

characteristics in common: adaptive planning, iterative

development, rapid and flexible response to change

and the promotion and enhancement of communication

(Begel & Nagappan, 2007) (Maher, 2009).

The possibilities of networked interaction have

introduced new perspectives on knowledge

production. The key challenge of digital education

lies in preparing adults for a complex and

increasingly unpredictable world, marked by

diversity, interdependence, and dynamic

relationships (Figueiredo, 2022), rather than merely

promoting the adoption of new technologies (Amante

et al., 2008). It is therefore imperative to design new

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5777-059X

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7153-2205

paradigms for “lifelong learning,” grounded in agile

methodologies and strategies that enhance learners’

engagement and active participation in the knowledge

acquisition process (Moraes, 2001).

Numerous writers have investigated the use of

agile approaches to training and education, leading to

a variety of learning models, among other outcomes.

For example, in their systematic reviews, A. López-

Alcarria et al., 2019 (López-Alcarria et al., 2019) and

P. Salza et al., 2019 (Salza et al., 2019) show that

implementing agile methodologies in education

improves performance, satisfaction, and motivation

among faculty and students while also creating a

learning environment that supports the development

of responsible and sustainable citizens.

The eXtreme Teaching approach is the outcome of

other authors' adaptations of Extreme Programming

(XP) for the educational setting, including R.

Andersson et al., 2006 (Andersson & Bendix, 2006)

and R. Vuokko et al., 2007 (Vuokko & Berg, 2007).

The Just-in-Time Feedback technique is used in

project-based learning courses by V. Razmov et al.,

2007 (Razmov & Anderson, 2006) and A. Delhij et al.,

2015 (Delhij et al., 2015) explain how Scrum has been

adapted for use in education using the eduScrum mode.

Luís, C. and Marcelino, M. J.

MYFORSCRUM: A New Digital Tool for Implementing Forscrum in Educational / Training Contexts.

DOI: 10.5220/0013276100003932

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 697-704

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

697

In this paper, grounded in the design thinking

methodology (Brown, 2008; Denning, 2013) and

principles of Learner-Centered-Design (Soloway et

al., 1994a), we analyze the methods employed in

adult education and training processes and describe a

prototype of an app that was developed for learning

ecosystems, using the forScrum framework.

2 IMPLEMENTING AGILE

STRATEGIES IN ACTIVE

LEARNING

A significant volume of research has investigated the

application of agile methodologies in educational and

training contexts. Many studies have examined how

frameworks originally designed for software

development can be adapted to enhance learning

environments, emphasizing collaboration, flexibility,

and learner-centered approaches. In recent years,

Scrum has gained widespread adoption, transcending

its origins as a software development methodology to

become a versatile framework for work and

management in diverse sectors within large

organizations (Sutherland, 2020). Willy Wijnands, a

professor of chemistry/physics at Ashram College in

the Netherlands, pioneered the application of Scrum

in educational settings, integrating educational

strategies, methodologies, and resources into a

framework he termed eduScrum (Delhij et al., 2015;

Devedžić & Milenković, 2011). The implementation

of Scrum in educational practices has fostered a

seamless integration of education/training and

practical learning experiences (Devedžić &

Milenković, 2011).

S. Duvall, et al. provide a method called

Scrumage (SCRUM for AGile Education) in an effort

to get around the need to make compromises. To meet

their unique learning requirements and preferences,

they give each student in a course the option to choose

from a variety of educational approaches and sets of

materials (Duvall et al., 2018, 2020).

Xiang J. and Han C. propose an interdisciplinary

teaching framework, TL-Scrum (Teaching and

Learning-Scrum), that leverages the agile

development methodology to improve students'

teamwork skills within physics education. This

approach, grounded in Scrum principles, comprises

six key phases: setting task objectives, forming study

groups, defining learning goals, overseeing study

schedules, communicating learning outcomes, and

reviewing the overall learning process. This

structured, agile-based model fosters collaborative

learning and aligns instructional practices with team-

oriented skill development.(Xiang & Han, 2021).

The concept of Agile Learning Loops (ALL),

from K Böhm, Y Unnold and PV Zahorodko,

involves the methodological adaptation of the

SCRUM framework alongside loop-oriented learning

models - such as Single-, Double-, and Triple-Loop

Learning to create an organizational framework

tailored for higher education. This approach serves as

a design structure for learning within Problem-Based

Learning (PBL) environments (Böhm & Unnold,

2021)(Zahorodko, 2023).

The forScrum framework was specifically

developed for professional training, with the aim of

adapting the principles and practices of the Scrum

methodology to the needs of learning environments

focused on building professional competencies. This

model employs a holistic approach that incorporates

various pedagogical strategies, including analogies to

heutagogy, to foster a flexible, self-directed, and

collaborative learning experience. Trainees are

encouraged to take an active role in their learning

process, embracing responsibility and engaging in

team-based problem-solving within real-world

professional contexts. This agile structure supports

not only skill acquisition but also the development of

self-determined learning capacities essential for

lifelong learning (Luís et al., 2022, 2023).

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

AND TOOLS

To achieve the objective of this study, the Design

Thinking and Learning Centered Design

methodologies were applied to ensure a

comprehensive, learner-centered approach in the

prototype's development. Design Thinking, a

methodology emphasizing user-centricity, aims to

deeply understand the needs of learners through a six-

stage iterative process: empathizing, defining,

ideating, prototyping, testing, and implementing

(Brown, 2008; Gibbons, 2016). This approach

promotes innovative solutions by actively engaging

users and stakeholders in the creative process, thus

ensuring that the final outcome aligns closely with

real learning expectations and requirements. In this

study, Design Thinking was instrumental in

facilitating the generation and testing of ideas,

fostering an environment of open collaboration and

learning.

In parallel, Learning Centered Design focuses on

developing solutions that address not only functional

CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

698

requirements but also the specific learning and

developmental needs of the learner (Quintana et al.,

2013; Soloway et al., 1994b). This methodology

shaped the prototype’s development by centering the

design process around effective educational

experiences, where learning objectives, intuitive

interaction, and learner development support were

paramount. This method is particularly well-suited

for educational tool development, as it guides the

design process to enhance both usability and

pedagogical efficacy.

To further support the prototype's development,

Unified Modeling Language (UML) diagrams,

including use case and class diagrams, were created

to represent user interactions and system structure

systematically (Rumbaugh et al., 1999). These

diagrams provided a visual framework that clarified

the relationships and interactions within the

prototype, serving as a blueprint for the functional

design. The actual prototype was developed using

Figma, a collaborative design platform, which

allowed for precise interaction design and easy

adjustments based on iterative feedback.

The combination of these methodologies,

alongside structured UML modeling and the use of

Figma, enabled the creation of a robust prototype that

effectively addresses both learner needs and

educational objectives.

4 DESIGN APPROACH

In this iterative and flexible model, the focus remains

firmly centered on learners' needs, enabling the

design to be continuously refined based on feedback

and new insights throughout the process. The three

core phases of Design Thinking — Understand,

Explore, and Materialize (Gibbons, 2016) — have

been thoroughly examined, providing a

methodological framework aimed at ensuring that the

solutions developed are genuinely user-centered. The

Understand phase emphasizes an immersive, in-depth

analysis of learners' needs; the Explore phase fosters

the generation and refinement of innovative ideas;

and finally, the Materialize phase centers on

prototyping and the practical implementation of

solutions, ensuring that the design effectively and

engagingly meets educational objectives.

4.1 Understand - Empathize and

Define

To gain a deeper understanding of the learners, data

collection was grounded in ethnographic research,

adopting an 'emic perspective' (Eriksson &

Kovalainen, 2015; Paul et al., 2003), to gather

observational notes directly from their experiences.

The absence of dedicated applications compatible

with the framework posed significant challenges for

the learners, limiting their ability to fully explore the

methodological and technological tools available.

This gap compelled students to resort to alternative

solutions, which often proved inadequate for meeting

the specific needs of their projects. As a result,

learners experienced a fragmented learning journey,

where support tools were not aligned with the

educational and technical goals of the framework.

These limitations hindered the comprehension and

practical application of key concepts, as learners had

to invest additional time in adapting and improvising

resources to enable a partial implementation of the

process. The lack of dedicated applications thereby

compromised the fluidity of the learning process and

students' confidence in using the framework,

highlighting a pressing need for tools specifically

developed to support this educational approach.

4.2 Explore – Ideate and Prototype

During the training sessions, and as new challenges

emerged, the primary difficulties encountered by the

learners throughout the formative process were

identified and discussed. Each issue was

collaboratively analyzed, creating a space for

dialogue among all participants to achieve a deeper

understanding of the limitations associated with the

use of the available tools. Once specific problems

were identified, various viable solutions were

proposed, aiming to minimize interruptions and

enhance the learning experience.

Among the solutions discussed, the proposal to

develop a single application that could centralize all

necessary functionalities quickly became a consensus

among participants. This application would aim to

eliminate the need to switch between different

platforms, a practice that learners repeatedly identified

as a source of frustration and time inefficiency.

During the development process, UML diagrams

were created to structure and visually represent the

components and functional flows of the proposed

application. These diagrams provided a clear and

systematic overview of the application’s architecture

and anticipated interactions, serving as a robust

foundation for subsequent design stages (Silva,

A;Videira, 2005). Building upon this initial modeling,

low- and high-fidelity prototypes were developed to

iteratively test and refine the application's interface and

functionality (Lauff et al., 2018).

MYFORSCRUM: A New Digital Tool for Implementing Forscrum in Educational / Training Contexts

699

4.3 Materialize – Test

Usability testing is a critical step in prototype

development, allowing for the assessment of user

interaction with the proposed system in terms of

effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. Among the

methodologies employed, Thinking Aloud out

(Nielsen, 2012), and heuristic evaluation (Nielsen,

1993, pp. 155–163) stand out. In the Thinking Aloud

method, users verbalize their thoughts, actions, and

difficulties as they navigate the system, providing

direct insights into the user experience and facilitating

the identification of usability barriers that might

otherwise go unnoticed in conventional analyses. On

the other hand, heuristic evaluation is conducted by

experts who examine the system against established

design principles to identify usability issues in a

structured manner.

Interestingly, even with more complex interfaces,

the combination of these two methodologies proves

highly effective: through the Thinking Aloud method,

groups of five evaluators were able to identify more

than half of the usability issues (Molich & Ballerup,

1990), while the heuristic evaluation complemented

the analysis by highlighting additional issues based

on recognized heuristics. These results underscore the

robustness of these methodologies in detecting

critical flaws and fostering a design that is more

intuitive and aligned with actual user needs. By

enabling adjustments grounded in empirical feedback

and heuristic principles, usability testing becomes an

indispensable resource for optimizing the user

experience, ensuring that the system is functional,

intuitive, and accessible.

5 THE PROTOTYPE

Before addressing the prototyping phase, it is

essential to present the use case diagrams that define

the application’s functional requirements.

The use case diagrams for Trainer (Figure 1) and

Learner (Figure 2) illustrate the main functionalities

and interactions that each type of user can access

within the application. These diagrams provide a clear

view of the functional requirements by detailing user

behaviors and the connections between various use

cases. Together, they meet the specific needs of each

user group, demonstrating how the app supports agile

project management and collaborative learning.

Additionally, by offering a foundational framework for

the development and execution of the app's features,

these diagrams ensure that the design adheres to

accessibility and usability guidelines for all users.

Figure 1: Use Case Diagram Teacher /Trainer.

Figure 2: Use Case Diagram Learner.

Building on these diagrams, the subsequent step

involved the development of low-fidelity prototypes.

These prototypes provided a foundation for a series

of usability tests, enabling iterative refinement of the

interface and functionalities based on user feedback.

Low-fidelity prototypes are particularly

advantageous at these initial stages, as they allow for

rapid adjustments in response to usability findings,

focusing on core design elements without the

constraints of complex visual details. This approach

ensures that essential user interactions and

navigational flows are thoroughly evaluated,

establishing a robust foundation for further

development.

In developing this App, consistency was

prioritized to ensure a smooth and predictable Learner

experience (LX) (Ahn, 2019). The use of uniform

interface elements, such as icons, buttons, and

navigation structures, was carefully adjusted to foster

intuitive interaction and reduce cognitive load (Budiu

& Nielsen, 2011). Fitts's Law was considered in the

placement and sizing of interactive elements,

optimizing accessibility and navigation efficiency

(Grosjean et al., 2007). Furthermore, the selection of

the Nested Doll and Dashboard patterns reflects the

application of Hick's Law, facilitating information

CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

700

organization and simplifying decision-making

processes for users throughout their navigation

(Proctor & Schneider, 2018).

The usability tests conducted with learners were

carried out using a functional prototype developed in

Figma, though it had no connection to databases.

Therefore, the Wizard of Oz technique (Dahlbäck et

al., 1993b, 1993a)was used in conjunction with the

'think aloud' method. This approach enabled direct

observation of user interactions with the prototype,

capturing their real-time reactions and interpretations.

To evaluate the usability and organization of the

layout, a series of tasks was designed to test the

interface's functionality and clarity. Seven tests were

conducted with educators and seven with learners,

following the theoretical framework proposed by

Jakob Nielsen and Tom Landauer (Nielsen, 2000).

The tasks included creating user stories,

configuring a sprint, and setting up a Scrum Poker

room. However, the prototype's HUB layout,

intended to centralize navigation by providing access

to multiple areas from a single location, did not align

with the learners' mental models. This misalignment

led to navigational difficulties and disrupted the

interaction flow, emphasizing the importance of an

intuitive design that meets user expectations and

minimizes cognitive load.

The layout in Figure 3 represents the initial menu;

Figure 4 presents a Kanban board with user stories,

and Figure 5 displays the curricular units.

Figure 3: Initial menu (Calendar, Curricular units, Teams,

Sprint, Messages and Settings).

Based on user experience, the decision was made

to implement the Nested Doll and Tabbed View

design patterns, as these proved to be more aligned

with the learners' expectations and familiarity.

Figure 4: Kanban board with user stories, (Thermal tourism

and Cruzer).

Figure 5: Curricular Units.

The selection of these patterns is due to their

capacity to provide a clear hierarchical structure and

organized access to various sections, adhering to the

principles of internal and external consistency one of

Jakob Nielsen's heuristics (Nielsen, 2020). This

approach allows learners to navigate the interface more

easily, benefiting from an intuitive organization that

promotes immediate recognition of functionalities and

reduces cognitive load, in line with Jakob’s Law

(Nielsen, 2020). (Figure 6, 7 and 8).

MYFORSCRUM: A New Digital Tool for Implementing Forscrum in Educational / Training Contexts

701

Figure 6: Main Menu.

Figure 7: Kanban board with user stories.

6 CONCLUSIONS

The prototype presented here is designed to support

the agile forScrum methodology, emerging as an

essential tool for transforming educational and

training practices and advancing Education/Training

4.0. By structuring and monitoring sprints and

associated tasks, this app promotes a learner-centered

Figure 8: Curricular Units.

pedagogical model that facilitates the adaptability and

flexibility required to address the challenges of an

ever-evolving digital context.

The simplicity of the application, combined with

principles of usability and accessibility, ensures that

learners with low digital literacy can actively

participate in the preparation, execution, and

learnability is a core element, essential to

guaranteeing a smooth transition to agile practices

without significant barriers. This approach thus

promotes an inclusive and intuitive learning

experience.

In the context of Education 4.0, which goes

beyond traditional pedagogical and andragogical

approaches, new practices such as heutagogy,

peeragogy, and cybergogy have emerged, which are

fundamental to a learner-centered education

(Cherusheva et al., 2023; Miranda et al., 2021). This

perspective encourages self-directed learning,

emphasizing humanistic and constructivist principles

that motivate learners to take responsibility for their

own development.

Future work will focus on developing a fully

functional application that embodies these concepts,

further contributing to an inclusive, learner-driven,

and agile educational ecosystem aligned with the

principles of Education 4.0.

CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

702

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I extend my gratitude to all who contributed to the

development of this App, whose success stems from

the commitment and dedication of a multidisciplinary

team. To those who shared their knowledge, provided

essential feedback, and devoted their time and

expertise, I offer my deepest appreciation. To all the

learners who participated in usability tests and shared

their invaluable perspectives, my sincere thanks, for

your contributions that were instrumental in guiding

the evolution of this tool.

REFERENCES

Abbas, N., Gravell, A. M., & Wills, G. B. (2008). Historical

roots of agile methods: Where did ‘Agile thinking’

come from? Lecture Notes in Business Information

Processing, 9 LNBIP, 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/

978-3-540-68255-4_10

Ahn, J. (2019). Drawing Inspiration for Learning

Experience Design (LX) from Diverse Perspectives.

The Emerging Learning Design Journal, 6, 1–6.

https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/eldjAvailableat:

https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/eldj/vol6/iss1/1h

ttp://eldj.montclair.edu

Amante, L., Quintas-Mendes, A., Morgado, L., & Pereira,

A. (2008). Novos contextos de Aprendizagem e

Educação online. Revista Portuguesa de Pedagogia,

99–119. https://doi.org/10.14195/1647-8614_42-3_6

Andersson, R., & Bendix, L. (2006). eXtreme teaching: A

framework for continuous improvement. Computer

Science Education, 16(3), 175–184. https://doi.org/

10.1080/08993400600912335

Begel, A., & Nagappan, N. (2007). Usage and perceptions

of agile software development in an industrial context:

An exploratory study (pp. 255–264). IEEE.

Böhm, K., & Unnold, Y. (2021). Agile Learning Loops-

Combining Agile Approaches In Higher Education

Programs. In International Conference on Mobile

Learning Proceedings, 177–184.

Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business

Review. www.hbr.org

Budiu, R., & Nielsen, J. (2011). Usability of iPad Apps and

Websites. In Nielsen Norman Group (Ed.), Nielsen

Norman Group: Vol. 2nd Edition: Nielsen Norman

Group.

Cherusheva, G., Nowak, B., Maksymenko, A., Kabysh, M.,

& Vakerych, M. (2023). Higher pedagogical education

in the European Union: Innovative technologies.

Eduweb, 17(2), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.46502/

issn.1856-7576/2023.17.02.22

Cubric, M. (2013). An agile method for teaching agile in

business schools. International Journal of Management

Education, 11(3), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ij

me.2013.10.001

Dahlbäck, N., Jönsson, A., & Ahrenberg, L. (1993a).

Wizard of Oz studies (Association for Computing

Machinery (ACM), Ed.; pp. 193–200). Association for

Computing Machinery (ACM). https://doi.org/10.1145/

169891.169968

Dahlbäck, N., Jönsson, A., & Ahrenberg, L. (1993b).

WIZARD OF OZ STUDIES — WHY AND HOW (In

Proceedings of the 1st international conference on

Intelligent user interfaces, Ed.; pp. 193–200).

Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).

https://doi.org/10.1145/169891.169968

Delhij, A., van Solingen, R., & Wijnands, W. (2015). The

eduScrum Guide. http://eduscrum.nl/en/file/CKFiles/

The_eduScrum_Guide_EN_1.2(1).pdf

Denning, P. J. (2013). Design thinking. Communications of

the ACM, 56(12), 29–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/

2535915

Devedžić, V., & Milenković, S. R. (2011). Teaching agile

software development: A case study. IEEE

Transactions on Education, 54(2), 273–278.

https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2010.2052104

Duvall, S., Hutchings, D. R., & Duvall, R. C. (2018).

Scrumage: A method for incorporating multiple,

simultaneous pedagogical styles in the classroom.

SIGCSE 2018 - Proceedings of the 49th ACM

Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education,

2018-January, 928–933. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159

450.3159596

Duvall, S., Hutchings, D. R., Spurlock, S., & Duvall, R. C.

(2020, March 10). A Study of the Scrumage Teaching

Approach: Student Learning and Attitude Changes.

2020 Research on Equity and Sustained Participation in

Engineering, Computing, and Technology, RESPECT

2020 - Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1109/RESPECT

49803.2020.9272452

Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2015). Qualitative Methods

in Business Research: A Practical Guide to Social

Research. SAGE Publications.

Figueiredo, A. D. (2022). Que futuro para a educação pós-

pandemia? Um balanço projetivo. Concelho Nacional

de Educação, December 2021, 252–259.

Gibbons, S. (2016). Design Thinking 101. Nielsen Norman

Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/design-

thinking/

Grosjean, M., Shiffrar, M., & Nther Knoblich, G. (2007).

Fitts’s Law Holds for Action Perception. Association

for Psychological Science, 95–99.

Lauff, C. A., Kotys-Schwartz, D., & Rentschler, M. E.

(2018). What is a prototype? what are the roles of

prototypes in companies? Journal of Mechanical

Design, 140(6). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4039340

López-Alcarria, A., Olivares-Vicente, A., & Poza-Vilches,

F. (2019). A systematic review of the use of Agile

methodologies in education to foster sustainability

competencies. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(10), 1–

29. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102915

Luís, C., Mauricio, S., & Marcelino, M. J. (2022). forScrum,

a Lesson to Learn for the 21st Century. In A. Mesquita,

A. Abreu, & J. V. Carvalho (Eds.), Perspectives and

Trends in Education and Technology: Selected Papers

MYFORSCRUM: A New Digital Tool for Implementing Forscrum in Educational / Training Contexts

703

from ICITED 2021. Springer Singapore, 2022. (pp.

355–365). Springer Singapore.

Luís, C., Valente, P., & Maurício, S. (2023). Referencial

Formação Contínua de formadores-forScrum. In I.

IEFP - Instituto do Emprego e Formação Profissional

(Ed.), IEFP - Instituto do Emprego e Formação

Profissional, IP.

Maher, P. (2009). Weaving agile software development

techniques into a traditional computer science

curriculum. ITNG 2009 - 6th International Conference

on Information Technology: New Generations, 1687–

1688. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITNG.2009.175

Miranda, J., Navarrete, C., Noguez, J., Molina-Espinosa, J.

M., Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., Navarro-Tuch, S. A.,

Bustamante-Bello, M. R., Rosas-Fernández, J. B., &

Molina, A. (2021). The core components of education

4.0 in higher education: Three case studies in

engineering education. Computers and Electrical

Engineering, 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compele

ceng.2021.107278

Molich, R., & Ballerup, D.-. (1990). Heuristic Evaluation

of user interfaces. Chi’90, April, 249–256.

https://doi.org/10.1145/97243.97281

Moraes, M. (2001). O Paradigma Educacional Emergente.

7a Edição São Paulo, 239.

Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering. In Morgan

Kaufmann Pietquin O and Beaufort R. https://doi.org/

10.1145/1508044.1508050

Nielsen, J. (2012). Thinking Aloud: The #1 Usability Tool.

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/thinking-aloud-the-

1-usability-tool/

Nielsen, J. (2020). 10 Usability Heuristics for User

Interface Design. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/

ten-usability-heuristics/

Paul, M., Jean, E., & Bamberg, M. (2003). Qualitative

Research in Psychology (First Edit). American

Psychological Association.

Proctor, R. W., & Schneider, D. W. (2018). Hick’s law for

choice reaction time: A review. Quarterly Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 71(6), 1281–1299.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1322622

Quintana, C., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2013). Exploring

a Structured Definition for Learner-Centered Design. In

International Conference of the Learning Sciences,

256–263.

Razmov, V., & Anderson, R. (2006). Experiences with

agile teaching in project-based courses. ASEE Annual

Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings.

https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--1018

Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., & Booch, G. (1999). The UML

reference manual. In New York: Addison-Wesley (Vol.

1).

Salza, P., Musmarra, P., & Ferrucci, F. (2019). Agile

Methodologies in Education: A Review. Agile and

Lean Concepts for Teaching and Learning, 25–45.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2751-3_2

Silva, A;Videira, C. (2005). UML Metodologias e

Ferramentas CASE. Centro Atlântico.

Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. E. (1994a). Learner-

Centered Design: The Challenge for HCI in the 21st

Century. Interactions, 1(2), 36–48. https://doi.org/

10.1145/174809.174813

Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. E. (1994b). Learner-

Centered Design: The Challenge for HCI in the 21st

Century. Interactions, 1(2), 36–48. https://doi.org/

10.1145/174809.174813

Sutherland, J. J. (2020). Scrum Manual de Instruções.

Vuokko, R., & Berg, P. (2007). Experimenting with

eXtreme Teaching Method – Assessing Students’ and

Teachers’ Experiences. Issues in Informing Science and

Information Technology, 4, 523–534. https://doi.org/

10.28945/969

Xiang, J. W., & Han, C. Q. (2021). Effect of Teaching And

Learning-Scrum On Improvement Physics

Achievement And Team Collaboration Ability Of

Lower-Secondary School Student. Journal of Baltic

Science Education, 20(6), 983–1000. https://doi.org/

10.33225/JBSE/21.20.983

Zahorodko, P. V. (2023). Overview of Agile frameworks in

Computer Science education. Educational Dimension.

https://doi.org/10.31812/ed.645

Moore, R., Lopes, J. (1999). Paper templates. In

TEMPLATE’06, 1st International Conference on

Template Production. SCITEPRESS.

Smith, J. (1998). The book, The publishing company.

London, 2nd edition.

CSEDU 2025 - 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

704