Agile methods as problem-based learning designs: setting and
assessment
Elena García Barriocanal Miguel-Angel Sicilia
Dept. Computer Science Dept. Computer Science
University of Alcalá University of Alcalá
Spain Spain
elena.garciab@uah.es msicilia@uah.es
Juan-José Cuadrado
Dept. Computer Science
University of Alcalá
Spain
jjcg@uah.es
ABSTRACT
Problem-based learning has been proved as a good method to
teach Software Engineering, concretely when project
development skills are involved. In those cases, project work
departs from some stakeholder requirements that are often ill-
defined, and the team progresses by analysis and design
identifying the parts that the team can develop and which of them
requires further investigation. From a teaching perspective, agile
methods like Scrum perfectly fit the problem-based learning
model, since sprint results can provide a good indicator of group
and individual student progress. In this paper, a case study aimed
at introducing learning analytics in an instructional design for
Advanced Software Engineering courses using problem-based
learning approach is reported. Learning analytics were carried out
both from the project work process, adopting some tools of the
platform used to manage task and activities (Jira Software), and
from the obtained final grade, using Jupyter notebooks.
CCS CONCEPTS
• Social and professional topics → Software engineering
education
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or
distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and
the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned
by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted.
To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists,
requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from
Permissions@acm.org.
TEEM'18, October 24-26, 2018, Salamanca, Spain
© 2018 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to
ACM.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-6518-5/18/10…$15.00
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3284179.3284237
Salvador Sánchez-Alonso
Dept. Computer Science
University of Alcalá
Spain
salvador.sanchez@uah.es
• Social and professional topics → Computational science
and engineering education
• Applied computing → Collaborative learning
KEYWORDS
Problem-based learning, software engineering teaching, agile
methods, Jira, learning analytics
ACM Reference format:
Elena García-Barriocanal, Miguel-Angel Sicilia, Salvador Sánchez-Alonso
and Juan-José Cuadrado. 2018. Agile methods as problem-based learning
designs: setting and assessment. In Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality
(TEEM 2018) (Salamanca, Spain, October 24-26, 2018), F. J. García-Peñalvo
Ed. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 8 pages.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3284179.3284237
1 INTRODUCTION
Problem-based learning (PBL) is a student-centered pedagogy in
which students learn through the experience of problem solving
[1] helping them to develop flexible knowledge, effective
problem-solving skills, self-directed learning, effective
collaboration skills and intrinsic motivation [2]. PBL represents
also a paradigm shift from traditional classroom/lecture teaching.
The role of the instructor in PBL is to facilitate learning by
supporting, guiding, and monitoring the learning process. The
teacher must build students' confidence to take on the problem,
and encourage the students, while also stretch their
understanding. Therefore, the role of the teacher is to guide and
challenge the learning process rather than strictly provide
knowledge.
PBL is strongly based on group work. Working in groups,
students identify what they already know, what they need to
know, and how and where to access new information that may
 TEEM 2018, October 2018, Salamanca, Spain
lead to resolution of the problem. This procedure enhances
content knowledge while simultaneously fosters the development
of communication, problem-solving, critical thinking,
collaboration, and self-directed learning skills. PBL may position
students in a simulated real world working and professional
context which involves policy, process, and ethical problems that
will need to be understood and resolved to some outcome.
The PBL learning process should be approached following
some methods: (i) Presentation of an "ill-structured" (open-ended)
problem, (ii) generation of a "knowledge inventory" (a list of "what
the student know about the problem" and "what they need to
know"), (iii) generation of possible solution, and (iv) formulation
of learning issues for self-directed and coached learning.
Arguably, Software Engineering (SE), when focused on a project
perspective, resembles closely these methods. It departs from
some user or stakeholder requirements that are often ill-defined,
and the team progresses by analysis and design identifying the
parts that the team can develop and which of them requires
further investigation (e.g. ideating and evaluating architectural or
design approaches, selecting technological components) to
accomplish the project requirements. This is particularly true with
agile methods as Scrum [3], in which the team has an ample
degree of discretion in choosing the content of the iterations,
including how to approach the work, the number of tasks to fulfill
and the responsible of them.
All the above suggests that a PBL approach in the context of a
realistic setting would make the best fit of actual SE practice with
classroom activity. While first, entry level courses on SE need to
introduce many concepts and techniques, second courses start
from an overall knowledge of the main topics, and thus represent
a good opportunity to focus on practice by using PBL. Further, this
allows for “authentic” assessment methods that incorporate
metrics and indications of productivity that are close to those of a
professional setting [4].
In this paper, we report the instructional design and the
evaluation of a PBL experience on an advanced software
engineering course using Scrum along with the integration of
learning analytics (LA) in the whole process. Previous work has
applied ideas from PBL for teaching agile methods themselves or
to provide a realistic setting for work and assessment, but here we
report the instructional design systematically and focus on
learning actual modern software engineering concepts, including
the use of learning analytics to improve and track students’
progress.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. In Section 2
background is described, showing a brief review of current
integration learning analytics in PBL approaches and the
experiences in software engineering teaching with PBL methods.
Section 3 describes the instructional design of an advanced
software engineering course carried out using PBL on an agile
methodology driven development. The course integrates LA in the
whole learning process. Results and discussion are shown in
1 http://pbl3-project.eu/
340
E. García Barriocanal et al.
Section 4 and finally conclusions and pitfalls are sketched in
Section 5.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Problem-based learning and learning
analytics
The increased usage of learning technologies such as learning
management systems, web-based learning environments, Web 2.0
tools, social media etc, has led to the generation of a large variety
of different and multimodal educational data [5]. Thus, an
important question is how we can gather and make sense of all
these data to improve learners’ performance, teachers’ role and
course’s design. In this context, learning analytics (LA) merge
closely connected to multiple and different research fields and
interests related to analysis, such as business intelligence,
statistics, web analytics, academic analytics, data mining, social
network analysis as well as research interest in the field of
learning sciences such as pedagogies, technology enhanced
learning, cognitive sciences etc. LA is finally strongly related to
the learning technologies that have become an integrated part of
the learning experience through the technology enhanced
learning paradigm. Such technologies generate large amounts of
educational data and range from cognitive tools to more
sophisticated and complex environments like learning
management systems, virtual learning environments and the
recent massive open online courses. LA definitions share an
emphasis on collecting and analysing learning data and
translating them into meaningful actions for improving the
learning experience for all involved stakeholders [6].
Currently, there seems to be a lack of available knowledge on
how to utilize LA when the courses are structured using the PBL
strategy. Projects like PBL 3.01 are actually focused on integrating
these approaches to capitalize on their respective strengths and
overcome their drawbacks. In addition, the project aims to enrich
the new paradigm including the semantic annotation of resources
to enable personalized learning [7].
Tempelaar et al. [8] carried out a research study for learning
and teaching of mathematics and statistics in a blended learning
environment. The methodology used includes a face-to-face part
of the learning process which followed the PBL strategy and an
online part which was optional. Within PBL, students were
required to form small groups, where each group had a specific
content expert and mentor. The data collected during the learning
process included performance scores, groups formed, Frequency
of using the practice tests, time spent on practice tests, number of
attempts at solving a problem, etc. The analysis of the gathered
data provides insights to students that help them monitor and
reflect on their progress, their level of comprehension and get
feedback from the teachers on their performance. The case study
concluded that the usage of the online environments as a
 Agile methods as problem-based learning designs: setting and
TEEM 2018, October 2018, Salamanca, Spain
assessment

complimentary tool to PBL proved to help students, as they helped
in the support of self-direction, reflection and decision making.
Other experience on integrating PBL approach with learning
analytics is the one reported by Göhnert et al [9] in the context of
analysis, problem solving and project report. These main phases
can be also described in terms of learning activities that take place
during these phases (Fig.1).
Group Forming

KOLEGEA project [10]. This project provides trainings for doctors Problem
practicing in family medicine using the PBL strategy. Medicine is Formulation

one of the educational domains where PBL is most commonly Task Formulation

used, and in this case, doctors were required to generate cases and
Problem Analysis
solve these cases in a PBL context. The platform used in Data Gathering

KOLEGEA is integrated with the Analytics workbench, which is a Analysis

generic and easily extensible web-based tool that supports various
analytics processes and visualizations. The use of the Analytics Design

workbench enables gathering of data from the project platform to Problem Solving
Implementation
be processed and analysed, but no specific information is provided
in the study regarding the effectiveness of the solution and actual Evaluation

LA outputs from the doctors’ PBL practices.

Reporting
These reported use cases in which PBL methods support data
gathering for learning analytics do not provide systematic
framework or guidelines that can help teacher and students to Figure 1: Aalborg PBL model activities for project work
improve the overall learning process, as PBL 3.0 project aims to
do. Taken this model as a basis, the course is designed to introduce
software engineering skills using Scrum as an agile method to
2.2 Teaching software engineering drive a software development. It also serves of pillar to introduce
Since problem-based learning method exposes students to a other software engineering techniques (estimation, deployment,
realistic problem and reinforces group working skills, it is version control, etc.). PBL problem solution is carried out by
supposed to be a good approach for teaching software project working to obtain a final functional piece of software. The
engineering, even better when students have been previously overall planning of the course learning activities adapted to PBL
taught in specific software engineering methods and techniques. model can be shown in Table 1.
There exist previous experiences where problem-based learning
has been used as an instructional approach for agile software Table 1: Adaptation of course planning to SCRUM
development [11]. In this case, Scrum has been proved as good
approach to integrate students with different technical
capabilities and to improve communication between team
members.
Other experiences, like the reported by El-Khalili [12],
describes the application of PBL to teaching agile methods
themselves in an advanced software engineering course.
However, here we focus on learning software engineering
contents and not only on the use of the agile method. In the course
described in this paper, learning about Scrum is part of the PBL
approach, since it is the most appropriate method to carry out the
work, but the project in which students are involved also implies
other software engineering methods and techniques, from specific
design of architecture to the way to deploy the software.

3 INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
3.1 Application of PBL phases
Aalborg PBL model [13] is the framework to guide students’ and
tutors’ activity during the reported course. This model stablishes Students are encouraged to form groups up to 5 persons during
several phases for the problem resolution to clearly put in practice the early beginning of the course. At the same time, a unique ill-
knowledge provided for other courses. According to it, the process defined problem formulation is given to students. The problem
of project work can be divided in three main phases: problem statement is formulated introducing vaguely non-functional

341
 TEEM 2018, October 2018, Salamanca, Spain
requirements which lead to the implementation of solutions that
require the concepts stated as learning results of the course.
Before a sprint, students go to a meeting to plan the work in the
following 3 weeks and after the sprint a review meeting with the
tutor takes place. During this meeting, an evaluation of the work
progress is done (see Section 3.3).
This instructional design fits the Aalborg PBL model, for first
weeks (from 1 to 6) cover from group forming to problem analysis,
splitting up user stories in task and subtask, making an estimation
of the effort for each task and subtask, sketching dependencies
between tasks, prioritizing each task, labelling them (high,
moderate, low) and, at last, sorting tasks in the backlog. Each task
is assigned to a student. The last part of the course (weeks 7 to 15)
covers problem solving and reporting. All these activities
introduce students in a realistic software project development.
3.2 Tools used
Students work is registered using JIRA Software2 platform and
GitHub3. JIRA Software is a platform to manage task and activities
in a project. This tool supports SCRUM, among other, and it
allows to register developers, task responsible, task
decomposition and effort estimation, as well as sprint definition,
execution and finalization.
Once groups are formed, teacher should assign a project to
each group. Students (the one who adopts the SCRUM master role)
must make, by consensus, a task decomposition, prioritization and
estimation, they must assign each task to a student in charge for
it and they must also define the backlog. At the beginning of a
sprint, all the tasks to be approached are labelled as to-do. Day by
day, the student responsible for a task should indicate if the task
is in-progress or finally done. At the same time, each group has a
repository for its project code in GitHub. All the code and artifacts
they generate should be uploaded to the project repository. The
student in charge for a task should be the person who uploads the
code.
JIRA Software also provides a catalog of graphical reporting
tools to check and predict developers’ and teams’ efficiency. From
the learning analytics viewpoint, JIRA has been used as a general-
purpose learning analytic tool that includes solutions to provide
information and visualizations around different types of data for
multiple stakeholders, i.e. students (developers in JIRA), teachers
(administrators in JIRA), etc., as described in Section 4. These
visualizations can be in the form of graphs, tables, charts etc., and
aim to assist stakeholders in getting a more holistic overview of
course activity realized in a specific platform. In this context, it
should be noted that GitHub also provides graphics to visualize
the contribution of developers to a repository.
3.3 Assessment approach
In a PBL context, the students’ performance evaluation in a
complex computer supported learning environment is a tiring and
time-consuming process for educators who must take into
2 https://www.atlassian.com/software/jira/agile
342
E. García Barriocanal et al.
consideration a large amount of parameters. Students’ assessment
should also be connected with their participation, the spirit of
collaboration, and the quality of engagement and creativity in the
group assignments [13]. These parameters are difficult for an
educator to assess without using sophisticated analytics
methodologies and tools. Such tools can also exploit data recorded
in an LMS and allow the educators to create a learner’s model of
successful behaviour, so that they can design their future courses
based on this model and increase the probability of enhanced
learners’ performances [14]. In this sense, and in the specific
described course, JIRA and GitHub can be considered the source
of most of the data, however they are not LMSs.
In this instructional design, students obtain an individual grade
taking into consideration 3 aspects:
1.Peer assessment: Students send to the tutor an
evaluation of the rest of the team along with a
description of the work done by each member of the
group.
2. Group grade: This grade is obtained according to the
evaluation of three parameters: (a) Productivity, i.e., the
number of requirements fulfilled, (b) Quality of the
design from a software engineering viewpoint and (c)
the use of software tools, both from a software
engineering and innovation viewpoint.
3. Individual grade: This part of the mark is obtained both
from the qualitative assessment of the software
provided for each student, taking GitHub repository
items as evidence, and from the student activity in the
group, which can be observed in JIRA.
Along with these aspects, in sprint review meetings the tutor
should monitor the overall activity during the course,
reconducting projects that do not progress and detecting those
students that fall behind with the rest group, in order to avoid they
finally cut off.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Using JIRA as a learning analytics tool
In this section a description of the Jira tools that can be used for
learning analytic purposes is shown. As previously mentioned,
Jira Software is a platform typically used for software
developements that can be used to conduct PBL approached
Software Engineering courses. Nonetheless, tutors can take
advantage of some of the features of the platform to make
learning analytics and to act consecuently. These features and
tools have been grouped by the PBL phase in which they are more
useful.
4.1.1. LA tools for task formulation and problem analysis phases
Project task breakdown per group can be displayed in JIRA. After
problem formulation, each group defines task and subtask
breakdown, prioritises tasks, estimates each task effort and
assigns each task to a member of the group. In the project backlog
3 https://github.com
 Agile methods as problem-based learning designs: setting and
TEEM 2018, October 2018, Salamanca, Spain
assessment

(Fig. 2), tutors can check the project tasks in the order that
students plan to approach them (the higher up the sooner to
approach). A summary of the task is shown: type of task, brief
description, responsible student and effort estimation.

Figure 3: Burndown chart

Figure 2: Task breakdown in the project backlog

Task details can be accessed clicking on the task, so tutors can

check to-do tasks, tasks in progress and done tasks at request,
among others.
4.1.2. LA tools for problem solving phase
During problem solving, students create sprints. Tutors can check
how the project is working and the task evolution during the
sprint using the sprint visualization tool. Start and end date per
each task is registered.
4.1.3. LA tools for general purpose Figure 4: Velocity chart
Jira Software provides tools to graphically check the progress of
each group and its activity. The “sprint burndown chart” (Fig. 3) The “cumulative flow diagram” (Fig. 5) shows the statuses of
is useful to track the total work remaining and to project the tasks over time, showing work done in comparison with work to
likelihood of achieving the sprint goal. This helps supervisors to do. This helps supervisor to identify potential bottlenecks that
guide the group to manage its progress and respond accordingly need to be investigated. Information from this diagram can be
(making re-estimation of tasks if needed). In this diagram, the completed with the “average age report”, that shows the average
closer the guideline line (grey one) to the remaining values, the age of unresolved issues in a period (Fig. 6). This report allows to
best progress and the best task estimation. Along with the check if the project work is something continous in the time or,
diagram, details about task dates is provided when the cursor is on the contrary, students progress only at the end of the sprint.
on dots over red line. A list of complete and uncomplete tasks can
be added to the chart presented in Fig. 3.
The “velocity chart” is useful to track the amount of work
completed from sprint to sprint. This helps tutor to determine the
group’s velocity and estimate the work each group can
realistically achieve in future sprints (Fig. 4) and it is useful to
early detection of groups that potentially can be in troubles to
finish the work. Task estimated effort is considering to generate
the chart, so measures showed in the diagram can be biased for an
initial wrong estimation of the work.

Figure 5: Cumulative flow diagram

343
 TEEM 2018, October 2018, Salamanca, Spain E. García Barriocanal et al.

An especially useful chart is the “pie chart report” (Fig. 7). It the backlog) or a poor quality in the implemented code (many
shows a pie chart of issues per project with different filters: issue bugs are continuosly arising).
type, assignee, priority, etc When interpreting this chart, the tutor
should consider that tasks have different work load, so this chart
should be completed with others (see Section 4.2) which consider
task effort estimation.

Figure 8: Single level group by priority report

Figure 6: Average age report

Figure 9: Time since creation issues report

In this report (in the case of 'Resolved' filtering), the longest

the tableau, the longest inactivity periods. On the contrary, the
Figure 7: Pie chart report per project filtered by student
(showing the number of tasks fulfilled) diagonal represents the optimal.

In order to be aware of the work progress of a group and to
maximize the project success, the “single level group by report”
(Fig. 8) is a useful tool. This diagram shows issues grouped by a
particular field for a filter: assignee, priority, etc, displaying the
amount or work done or to be completed.
The “time since issues report” (Fig. 9) is a bar chart showing
the number of issues for which your chosen date field (e.g.
'Created', 'Updated', 'Due', 'Resolved', etc) was set on a given date.
An increasing trend when 'Created' filter is used can suggest a
poor work in analysis phase (not enough tasks were included in
4.1 Quantitative result on student assessment
data
Although JIRA Software provides a large set of tools to monitor
activity that can be used for learning analytics purposes, the use
of other data such as the effort estimation for each task or the
number of commits in GitHub can be useful to be studied in
relation with the student grades, among others. In this sense,
students’ activity data from JIRA and GitHub have been obtained
using the Rest API of both tools. Data have been processed using
Jupyter Anaconda notebooks, as shown in the architecture drawn
up in Fig 104.

4 The relational model of data scrapped from the platforms along with dataset and

Jupyter Anaconda notebooks can be downloaded from

https://github.com/PBLDCC/PBL

344
 Agile methods as problem-based learning designs: setting and
assessment
Figure 10: Overall architecture for JIRA and GitHub data
processing
Teachers, besides evidences of JIRA and GitHub charts, can
take under consideration the results of those notebooks to adopt
the actions to improve the teaching and skills acquisition.
Figure 11: Final grade and group grade findings
Figure 12: Peer assessment and individual grade findings
TEEM 2018, October 2018, Salamanca, Spain
Studying final grade and group output, findings from students’
data suggests a bimodal distribution (Fig. 11), both on final grade
and also considering the different categories: productivity, quality
of the design and use of software tools (see Section 3.3).
Charts on the right (Fig. 11), suggest a correlation between the
quality in design and the productivity.
Regarding peer assessment (see Fig. 12), there is an obvious
highly correlation with the final grade (pearsonr>0.7), since this
is a part of the final grade. On the other hand, overall individual
student grade (based on both the software quality of the student
code and the student interaction with the rest of the group)
moderately correlate with grade from peers.
Besides the analytics on the students’ grade, some deeper study
on their progress is needed to complete the Jira reports. As
described in previous sections, Jira Software provides many charts
to track the progress of the group and the student individually,
but most of the reports are based on the number of task/issues
accomplished. This measure could be not significant since task
granularity can vary a lot. Measurements on the effort estimated
for each task/issue has been considered a more realistic indicator
of the work that students fulfilled (Fig. 13).
Figure 13: Estimated effort as a progress indicator
In this sense, finalized effort (measured in “story points” of
done tasks) accumulated per group correlates significantly
(pearsonr = 0.8, pval <0.052) with average individual grade per
group, suggesting that those groups who accomplish a greater
number of story points have developed a higher quality code and
their members have had more and higher quality interaction,
independently of the number of tasks/issues involved. This effort
correlates with lower significance with the group grade
(pearsonr=0.66). Finalized effort does not correlate with the use of
advanced software tools (slightly negative correlation),
suggesting that students who spend time in learning how to use
more advanced tools have decreased their productivity. On the
other hand, the finalized effort correlates positively but not
significantly with the quality of design (pearsonr=0.6).
345
 TEEM 2018, October 2018, Salamanca, Spain
5 CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK
In this paper, a case study on advanced software engineering
teaching using a PBL approach has been reported, along with how
learning analytics can be introduced in the process, both in the
groups and individual progress and in the final result. These
adoptions help tutors in two ways: (i) to early act when the
individual or group ongoing activities do not lead to fulfil the
project and (ii) to do a deeper study of the final grades and their
relations with other factors in the process, in order to improve
future courses.
Since an agile method, concretely Scrum, has been used to
carry out the projects, the use of Jira Software platform has
allowed to manage and register students’ tasks and activities
during the project work. Besides, they were encouraged to upload
the project code to GitHub repository. Both tools provide visual
reports to show different aspects of students’ progress and
activities, which can be use by tutors to guide students during the
project work. In addition, Jupyter notebooks have been provided
to make an analysis of those factor that have an impact in the
different components of the final grade (individual assessment,
group assessment or peer assessment, all of them made up of
several items).
However, pitfalls have been detected during the case study. In
order to obtain accurate data, it is certainly important that each
student properly interacts with the tools, avoiding delegation of
tasks in other group members. It has been detected that the
student who play the role of Scrum master tends to do the
assumption of the responsibility of uploading most of the code to
the project repository, biasing the results of the analysis.
It should be also taken into consideration that students are
learning about Scrum and the use of supporting tools (Jira
Software and GitHub) during the project ongoing, as a part of the
PBL approach. This can produce not realistic activity and progress
data after the first sprint. These data can be considerably different
from those obtained at the end stages of the project. Reasons for
this difference may be attributed to bad effort estimations,
overvaluation of coding capacity, Scrum/Jira misunderstandings,
etc., all of them result of a lack of knowledge at the beginning of
the project work.
For the aforementioned, rerunning the course using the same
instructional design could be a good proof of concept for the
346
E. García Barriocanal et al.
overall approach and it would allow to relieve pitfalls and to
obtain significant conclusions due to the use of a larger dataset.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is supported and co-funded by the Erasmus+
programme of the European Union under the project number
562236-EPP-1-2015-1-EL-EPPKA3-PI-FORWARD, PBL3.0. The
European Commission support for the production of this
publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents
which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission
cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the
information contained therein.
REFERENCES
[1] Neville, A. J. (2009). Problem-based learning and medical education forty years
on. Medical Principles and Practice, 18(1), 1-9.
[2] Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students
learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266
[3] Schwaber, K., Hundhausen, R., Starr, D. (2015) Agile project management with
SCRUM, 2nd ed, Microsoft Press.
[4] Santos, S. C. D., & Soares, F. S. (2013). Authentic assessment in software
engineering education based on PBL principles: a case study in the telecom
market. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software
Engineering (pp. 1055-1062). IEEE Press.
[5] Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: drivers, developments and challenges.
International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4, 304-317.
[6] Chatti, M.A., Dyckhoff, A.L., Schroeder, U., & Thüs, H. (2012). A reference model
for learning analytics. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning,
4 (5-6) 5, 318-331.
[7] Zotou, M. et al (2016) PBL3.0: Integrating Learning Analytics and Semantics in
Problem-Based Learning. 11th European Conference on Technology Enhanced
Learning: Pedagogical Grounded Learning Analytics Design Workshop.
[8] Tempelaar, D. T. et l (2013). Formative assessment and learning analytics. Third
International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, 205-209. ACM
press.
[9] Göhnert, T., Ziebarth, S., Verheyen, P., Ulrich Hoppe, H. (2014) Integration of a
Flexible Analytics Workbench with a Learning Platform for Medical Specialty
Training. LAK wokshops.
[10] Ziebarth, S et al (2013) Design of a collaborative learning platform for medical
doctors specializing in family medicine. The Computer Supported Collaborative
Learning Conference 2013, vol 2, 205-208.
[11] Kizaki, S., Tahara, Y., & Ohsuga, A. (2014). Software development PBL focusing
on communication using Scrum. In Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAIAAI),
2014 IIAI 3rd International Conference on (pp. 662-669). IEEE press
[12] El-Khalili, N. H. (2013). Teaching Agile software engineering using problem-
based learning. International Journal of Information and Communication
Technology Education (IJICTE), 9(3), 1-12.
[13] Barge, S. (2010). Principles of problem and project learning, the Aalborg PBL
model. Aalborg: Aalborg University.
doi:http://www.aau.dk/digitalAssets/62/62747_pbl_aalborg_modellen.pdf
[13] Dyckhoff, A. L., Zielke, D., Bültmann, M., Chatti, M. A., & Schroeder, U. (2012).
Design and Implementation of a Learning Analytics Toolkit for Teachers.
Educational Technology & Society, 15 (3), 58–76.
[14] Dietz-Uhler, B., & Hurn, J. E. (2013). Using learning analytics to predict (and
improve) student success: A faculty perspective. Journal of Interactive Online
Learning. 12(1). 17-26.