Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Available ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Availableonline
onlineatatwww.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect 
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia Manufacturing 32 (2019) 339–347
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

The
The 12th
12th International
International Conference
Conference Interdisciplinarity
Interdisciplinarity in
in Engineering
Engineering

Problem-Based
Problem-Based Learning
Learning Strategy
Strategy for for CAD
CAD Software
Software Using
Using Free-
Free-
Choice and Open-Ended
Society International Group
Choice and Open-Ended Group Projects
Manufacturing Engineering Conference Projects
2017, MESIC 2017, 28-30 June
2017, Vigo (Pontevedra), Spain
a, a a
Lucian
Lucian Balan
Balana, *,
*, Timber
Timber Yuen
Yuena,, and
and Moein
Moein Mehrtash
Mehrtasha
Costing models for capacity optimization in Industry 4.0: Trade-off
0F

0F

a
Automotive and Vehicle Technology Program, W Booth School of Engineering Practice and Technology, McMaster University, Faculty of
a
Automotive and Vehicle Technology Program, W Booth School of Engineering Practice and Technology, McMaster University, Faculty of
between used capacity and271,operational efficiency
Engineering, 200 Longwood Rd.S. - MARC 271, Hamilton, ON, L8P 0A6, Canada;
Engineering, 200 Longwood Rd.S. - MARC Hamilton, ON, L8P 0A6, Canada;

A. Santanaa, P. Afonsoa,*, A. Zaninb, R. Wernkeb

Abstract
Abstract a
University of Minho, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal
This paper presents the implementation a pedagogical
b
method
Unochapecó, basedChapecó,
89809-000 on problem-based
SC, Brazil learning (PBL) for undergraduate students
This paper presents the implementation a pedagogical method based on problem-based learning (PBL) for undergraduate students
enrolled in engineering programs. It aims to demonstrate improved student learning outcomes and increased student participation
enrolled in engineering programs. It aims to demonstrate improved student learning outcomes and increased student participation
using free-choice open-ended PBL projects, as compared to projects with pre-defined topics and established specifications. The
using free-choice open-ended PBL projects, as compared to projects with pre-defined topics and established specifications. The
authors believe this method of teaching can increase student satisfaction while learning commercial CAD/CAM software widely
authors believe this method of teaching can increase student satisfaction while learning commercial CAD/CAM software widely
Abstract
used in automotive industry.
used in automotive industry.
Under
© 2019 the
© 2018 The concept Published
Authors.
The Authors. of "Industry
Published 4.0", Ltd.
by Elsevier
by Elsevier production processes will be pushed to be increasingly interconnected,
Ltd.
© 2018 The
information Authors.
based Published
on a real by Elsevier
time basis Ltd. necessarily, much more efficient. In this context, capacity optimization
and,
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
goes beyond
Selection the traditional
and peer-review aim
under of capacityof
responsibility maximization, contributing
the 12th International also for
Conference organization’sinprofitability
Interdisciplinarity Engineering.and value.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the 12th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering.
Indeed, lean management and continuous improvement approaches suggest capacity optimization instead of
Keywords: Engineering
maximization. The pedagogical method; problem
study of capacity based learning;
optimization project based
and costing learning;
models CAD
is an modelling;research
important automotive; open-ended
topic project;
that deserves
Keywords: Engineering pedagogical method; problem based learning; project based learning; CAD modelling; automotive; open-ended project;
contributions from both the practical and theoretical perspectives. This paper presents and discusses a mathematical
model for capacity management based on different costing models (ABC and TDABC). A generic model has been
1. Introduction
developed and it was used to analyze idle capacity and to design strategies towards the maximization of organization’s
1. Introduction
value. The trade-off capacity maximization vs operational efficiency is highlighted and it is shown that capacity
Nomenclature
optimization might hide operational inefficiency.
Nomenclature
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
PBL
Peer-review Project-based
under responsibility learning
of the scientific committee of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference
PBL Project-based learning
IBL
2017. Instructional-based learning
IBL Instructional-based learning
CAD/CAM Computer-aided design / Computer aided-manufacturing
CAD/CAM Computer-aided design / Computer aided-manufacturing
Keywords: Cost Models; ABC; TDABC; Capacity Management; Idle Capacity; Operational Efficiency

1. Introduction
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-289-674-0250 ext.59102; fax: +1-905-525-7015
* The
Corresponding
cost author.
of idle Tel.: +1-289-674-0250
capacity ext.59102;
is a fundamental fax: +1-905-525-7015
information for companies and their management of extreme importance
E-mail address: balanl@mcmaster.ca
E-mail address: balanl@mcmaster.ca
in modern production systems. In general, it is defined as unused capacity or production potential and can be measured
in several©ways:
2351-9789 tons
2018 The of production,
Authors. available
Published by Elsevier Ltd.hours of manufacturing, etc. The management of the idle capacity
2351-9789 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is anAfonso.
* Paulo open access
Tel.:article under
+351 253 510the761;
CC BY-NC-ND
+351 253license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an open access article under the CC fax:
BY-NC-ND 604 741
license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Selection
E-mail and peer-review
address: under responsibility of the 12th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering.
psafonso@dps.uminho.pt
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the 12th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering.

2351-9789 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review
2351-9789 © under
2019responsibility
The Authors. of the scientificbycommittee
Published Elsevier of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017.
Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the 12th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering.
10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.223
340 Lucian Balan et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 32 (2019) 339–347
2 L. Balan, T. Yuen and M. Mehrtash / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000

CATIA A modelling software used in automotive and aerospace industry

1.1. Theoretical Background

One of the major goals of many people from teaching community is to identify new pedagogical methods that
trigger students’ passion for studying and increase students’ engagement in the learning process.
Traditional engineering education is generally based on the Instructional Based Learning (IBL) teaching model,
where knowledge is delivered to students through lectures, with students playing a passive role. Traditional methods
does not always produce the expected learning results because students learn in many different ways. Some students
learn better by memorization and repetition, while others do it better by reasoning, problem solving, or by working
on practical applications with their own hands. With larger class sizes, it becomes a challenge for the professors to
pay adequate attention to students’ individual learning needs.
Experiential learning [2-5] is a teaching methodology based on learning from direct experience through practice,
self-reflection, and observation, as opposed to the traditional academic learning that generally relies on acquiring
information mainly through passive study. At the foundation of experiential learning is Kolb’s theory [3] that
identifies learning as a cyclic process with four stages: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract
conceptualization, and active experimentation. Two well-known types of implementations of experiential learning
are Problem Based Learning [6-10] and Project Based Learning (PBL) [11-15].
The PBL pedagogical approach engages students in building up knowledge by working in groups to solve a
challenging question. With students playing an active role in the learning process, it is a student-centered approach.
Blumenfeld [12] defines PBL as a teaching method that actively engages students to “pursue solutions to non-
trivial problems by asking and refining questions, debating ideas, making predictions, designing plans and/or
experiments, collecting and analyzing data, drawing conclusions, communicating their ideas and findings to others,
asking new questions and creating artifacts”.
In a typical PBL implementation, students will work in groups to solve a complex problem or project. Often, the
driving question is open-ended to leave students enough room to develop their own approaches to solve the given
task. Once the students identify the project needs, they evaluate what tools are available and what is missing to
complete their project assignment. Next, they investigate, debate, plan, and search for alternate solutions, ask
themselves new questions and search for adequate answers in a cyclic context, and finally present their findings
through a final report.
Thomas [13] made the observation that a PBL implementation with challenging questions that combines design,
problem solving, and decision making would give students the chance to work independently over extended lengths
of time and conclude with realistic products or presentations.
Using PBL as experiential learning for undergraduate students have been supported by many scholars and their
results were published in numerous papers journals. An example of implementation of PBL method to engineering
capstone projects at McMaster University is shown in [14]. The authors have also presented the implementation of a
blended PBL/IBL method to a 2nd year engineering curriculum in [6]. Noteworthy PBL benefits include
development of team collaboration skills, better student engagement in learning process, and increased student
satisfaction.

1.2. Research Problem

Teaching undergraduate students CAD software used in industrial environments comes with the benefit of having
job-ready graduates extremely competitive for the current job market. A strong portfolio based on undergraduate
work related to industrial assignment may be decisive in selection of a potential candidate for a job interview.
However, teaching a commercial CAD software is often a challenge for many university professors for several
reasons. Commercial CAD software packages, particularly those used in automotive industry, are quite complex
with not-so-friendly user interfaces. Furthermore, learning resources are usually limited and restricted to internal
training within companies. The learning curve for this kind of software is typically steep, and difficult to fit within a
standard allocated time of a normal university course.
 Lucian Balan et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 32 (2019) 339–347 341
L. Balan, T. Yuen and M. Mehrtash / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000 3

Often, despite significant studying efforts, students’ individual achievements at the end of such a course can be
minimal due to lack of adequate instructional time available. It is quite common to notice students starting the course
with great interest but loosing it as the course progresses. Considering that many students enroll in engineering
programs to pursue their hobbies, it is important to find pedagogical methods that trigger their passion for learning.

2. PBL Implementation

2.1. Methodology

The PBL method described in this paper was introduced to a 2-nd year course offered in the School of
Engineering Practice and Technology at McMaster University. This course if part of the curriculum in the
Automotive and Vehicle Technology stream. The course, named AUTO TECH 2AC3 Advanced CAD, spans over a
full academic term of 12 weeks with a total of 48 instructional hours. A number of 7 weeks (28 instructional hours)
are allocated for learning CATIA modeling software [1], an industrial software widely used in automotive and
aerospace sector.
The primary learning objective of this course is to teach students to create solid-models of mechanical assemblies
and to simulate kinematic motion, using CATIA software. The main deliverable of CATIA component of the course
consist of a detailed CAD modeling project. The project requires detailed part modelling, assembly of parts into a
complex model, and simulated kinematics to demonstrate the functionality of the assembly.
With this learning approach, students are initially taught basic modeling techniques, then challenged through a 4-
week PBL group project. Students, working in groups of six, must apply their knowledge and creativity to build a
CAD model of a real-world mechanical assembly of certain complexity.
In prior implementations of this course, the project topic was pre-defined by instructor along with specific
constraints established for all groups. With the new approach, topic selection is free, projects are open-ended, and
students are allowed to select a desired level of complexity and modeling details. Each student is required to
demonstrate a self-learned modeling technique and a specific amount of out-of-class working hours.
The assembly chosen by the students must be of relative complexity and it should include moving components
with motion transfer through various mechanical components such as chain, sprockets, pulleys, belts, gears, cams,
etc. The selected assembly should have at least one kinematic chain with either a revolute or a translational input
motion. Examples of student selected topics include various automotive or airplane engines, bicycle or motorcycle,
lawnmower, RC car, helicopter toy, mechanical clock, automotive steering, suspension systems, and wind turbine
with gear reduction.

Fig. 1. (a) 4-cyl 2.2L GM EcoTech engine; (b) 3-cyl 1.0L Suzuki engine; (c) Mazda RX7 rotary engine;

A significant number of combustion engines and other sub-assemblies are available at McMaster University
Automotive Lab for students interested in modeling automotive related products. The list includes: ten 4-cyl 2.2L
GM EcoTech engines, two Mazda RX7 rotary engines, one 6-cyl V6 2.8L GM Camaro engine, one 3-cyl 1.0L
342 Lucian Balan et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 32 (2019) 339–347
4 L. Balan, T. Yuen and M. Mehrtash / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000

Suzuki engine, one 2-cyl 650cc Boxer engine, 1-cyl 4-stroke Subaru OVC engine, and one 1-cyl 4-stroke FH
Yamaha engine. Students are allowed to take the components apart and do the measurements needed for creating the
CAD models. Fig. 1 shows three samples of the combustion engines available.
The complexity of the selected project is verified and approved by the course instructor. The instructor may
decline a project if it lacks complexity, or it can make additional recommendations in order to fulfil the expected
course outcomes. As a general rule, the assembly to be modeled should be complex enough for the students to apply
most of the CAD skills learned in class, as well as self-learned techniques from additional resources. It should also
include a balanced amount of work with respect to the number of students in the team.
In order to do the CAD modeling, students need dimensional information of the assembly’s parts. Students have
several options in selecting the type of model for their project. They can either choose one of several real-life
replicas of products available at school, or bring in their own real-life project to school for modeling. Alternatively,
they can obtain free on-line specifications (blueprints) of the product of interest.
In the first three weeks of CATIA section of the course, students are introduced to CATIA software interface, and
various basic modeling techniques are taught through in-class short examples. It is worth mentioning that students
come into this course with basic modeling knowledge learned from a previous course using SolidWorks modeling
software, but they have no prior experience with CATIA. Short video tutorials are posted on the course website to
teach basic part modeling, assembling with constraints, and functional kinematics. In the remaining instructional
time of 4 weeks, students will apply these concepts to their own project.
To complete the PBL project, students in each group must first brainstorm ideas, define project constraints and
establish realistic goals. Next, they need to plan a modeling strategy using in-class taught methods and self-
conducted on-line study. After integration of their individual work into a final assembly, students share their
findings. At this stage, students often need to revisit their work to ensure correct assembly and functionality. Lastly,
they summarize and present their project achievements.

2.2. Discussions on PBL Method Implementation

The instructor need to allocate in-class time for groups to meet and discuss the status of their project. Team
collaboration is critical, students being responsible for splitting the assignment equally, ensuring they can meet the
project deadlines. Additionally, each group member should be involved in all main stages of the project: parts
modeling, assembling, and kinematic simulation.
Students are required to keep track of their contribution to the project into a logbook that is submitted with the
final group report. Each student must demonstrate a minimum of 40 hours of work as individual contribution to the
group project. This includes the in-class meeting time (16 hours) as well as the additional time needed to model
complex parts that require self-study from external resources (24+ hours) under instructor guidance.
As project work advances, the instructor provides individual guidance, specific to each group. This problem is
addressed during the in-class project meeting times with the students. Additional video tutorials are created and
added into the course as optional reference to help students with their specific needs. The benefits of this approach is
that students will learn only those modeling techniques that are strictly related to their project, without spending
precious time learning irrelevant procedures. The downside of this approach is that it adds significant load in course
preparation for the instructor.

2.3. Deliverables and Method of Assessment

Deliverables for CATIA group project include the following submissions for each team:
• A project report outlining group achievements as well as individual contribution of each student
• A set of short videos demonstrating the assembly procedure and kinematics functionality of the model
• Complete set of modeling files that can be used to test and grade achievements

Grading engineering group projects has always been a challenge for any instructor. Grading open-end projects
with individual topics adds more complexity to this challenge because creating a consistent marking rubric for
several distinct projects is not easy. Meanwhile, the grading method should accurately reflect each student
 Lucian Balan et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 32 (2019) 339–347 343
L. Balan, T. Yuen and M. Mehrtash / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000 5

contribution to the project to ensure fairness. Often, in large project groups, some students do not participate
enough, while others often do extra work to compensate.
For project grading, the instructor does first a pre-grading at group level. Then, individual grades for each student
are adjusted based on the percentage of contribution to each component listed in the marking scheme. The
adjustments are derived from the information submitted by the students in their project report.

Table 1 shows the marking rubric used for PBL implementation of CATIA open-end projects into the CAD
course.

Table 1 Marking rubric for CATIA project

Marks Feature Details
50 Parts Number of parts, level of model details, complexity of parts
- +/-Adjustments Grade adjustments for individual participation to Parts
20 Assembly All parts fully constrained, collision free
10 Fitting Video proof of simulated assembling/disassembling procedure, correct speed and order
20 Kinematics Video proof of simulated kinematics, one for each kinematic chain
- +/-Adjustments Grade adjustments for individual participation to Assembly/Fitting/Kinematics
100 Total Sum of all marks and adjustments

Table 2 shows a sample grading sheet for a team of five students. For example, for “Parts” grade component,
students #1 and #2 did more work to compensate for the lack of participation of student #5. For “Assembly” grade
component, all students in the team did an equal share of work but only half of the expected outcomes were actually
completed. For “Fitting” grade component, student #3 did outstanding work beyond project normal expectations,
thus a bonus was assigned. For “Kinematics” component, student #3 had no contribution, while the other team
members did their own share of responsibilities, but decided not to compensate for the missed work.

Table 2 Sample grading for CATIA project that reflects individual student contribution.
Group Pre-Grade Student #1 Student #2 Student #3 Student #4 Student #5
Marks/Out of Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual
Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade
Parts 40/50 45 45 40 40 30
Assembly 10/20 10 10 10 10 10
Fitting 10/10 10 10 20 10 10
Kinematics 15/20 15 15 0 15 15
Grade 75/100 80/100 80/100 70/100 75/100 65/100

3. Results

3.1. Sample of Student Work with PBL Approach

Fig. 2 to Fig. 5 show samples of CAD models created with CATIA software. The first three models were created
with existing engines from Automotive Lab, and for the last one students used their own real-life replica of product.
344 Lucian Balan et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 32 (2019) 339–347
6 L. Balan, T. Yuen and M. Mehrtash / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000

Fig. 2. Model of 2-Cylinder Boxer engine (6 students): (a) Full assembly; (b) Partial assembly; (c) Sub-assembly

Fig. 3. Model of 3-Cylinder Suzuki engine (4 students): (a) Full assembly; (b) Partial assembly 1; (c) Partial assembly 2

Fig. 4. Model of 1-Cylinder Subaru engine (4 students): (a) Full assembly; (b) Sub-assembly; (c) Partial assembly
 Lucian Balan et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 32 (2019) 339–347 345
L. Balan, T. Yuen and M. Mehrtash / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000 7

Fig. 5. Model of Nitro Sport RC toy car (4 students): (a) Full assembly; (b) Engine sub-assembly; (c) Suspension sub-assembly

3.2. Student Satisfaction Analysis

The PBL method described in this paper is currently in use at School of Engineering Practice and Technology at
McMaster University. The method has been continuously refined and perfected over a period of three years, based
on anonymous feedback provided by students at the end of each academic term. Prior to using this approach, a
single project topic with well-established specifications was assigned by default to all groups enrolled in the course.

Fig. 6. Student satisfaction of Advanced CAD course over past years

Fig. 6 indicates significant jumps (15%, 8%, 16%) in student satisfaction metrics over the past 3 years (2016-
2018) since when the PBL teaching method was introduced. Year 2018 exhibits an average above 90% on all three
classes enrolled in the course. The average class size is 23 students with a response participation rate of 72.5%.
During the refinement process of the course, many suggestions from students and colleagues were carefully
considered. The course instructor has spent a significant amount of time to create additional learning resources to
support this approach. This includes the development of numerous on-line video tutorials used for guiding students
with their project specifics.
346 Lucian Balan et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 32 (2019) 339–347
8 L. Balan, T. Yuen and M. Mehrtash / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000

4. Discussions of PBL Method

4.1. Observations from Students Feedback

Based on the anonymous feedback received from the students, the following can be concluded about the
implementation of this PBL method:
• Student like being able to select their own topic because they can pursue projects related to their hobbies
• Choosing own project topic motivates students to be more pro-active in learning
• Working in a team generates spectacular result that can be added to students’ portfolio for later reference
• Working in a team is fine as long as the grading is individually based, and fair
• Open-end projects allows for learning beyond curriculum limits, extra work is rewarded
• Working in team, triggers collaboration, and it prepares students for future jobs with specific industry
• Learning a commercial software widely used by many companies increases students’ skills confidence

4.2. Challenges for the Instructor

Nevertheless, this teaching method comes with a long list of benefits for the students. Instructors interested in
teaching students with this PBL method should be aware of the challenges that come attached with it.
Major challenges for the instructors include:
• Development of additional student learning resources associated with projects’ diversity.
• Challenges associated with grading group work
• The need to provide individual guidance for several concurrent projects at a time
• Adequate experience to deal with a broad range of engineering topics
• Willingness to help students outside of normal class hours

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

The paper demonstrates that PBL teaching method can increase student satisfaction in a CAD modeling course
by using free-choice open-ended projects, as compared to projects with pre-defined specifications. Metrics such as
project grading, goal achievements and the amount of student-work-hours were utilized for measuring students’
satisfaction at the end of the course.
Our results indicate that students allowed to pick their own topic for the PBL group project have achieved better
learning outcomes and their overall results were superior to those produced with well-established specifications. The
results also indicate that students involved in open-end PBL projects are often willing to spend extra time at their
own to go beyond the initially defined project specifications.
The paper discusses the challenges of implementing this method into an engineering undergraduate program with
a CAD software widely used in automotive sector. The instructor needs to prepare additional learning resources to
help students with individual guidance that is specific to each project. Appropriate grading to account for individual
student contributions is necessary to ensure a fair marking.
Increased student motivation along with team collaboration allows for spectacular results and the possibility of
building a strong portfolio for the students when graduating the program. Today’s manufacturing relates heavily on
3D models created with CAD software packages. Being trained on a widely spread industrial software is a great
asset for any university graduate looking for a job in engineering design or manufacturing sector.

References

[1] CATIA V5 - 3D CAD Design Software. Dassault Systemes. Vélizy-Villacoublay, France.

[2] Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Second edn. Pearson Education, Inc.
[3] Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
[4] Kolb, D.A., Boyatzis, R.E. and Mainemelis, C. (2011). Experiential Learning Theory: Previous Research and New Directions. In:
Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
 Lucian Balan et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 32 (2019) 339–347 347
L. Balan, T. Yuen and M. Mehrtash / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 000–000 9

[5] Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of
constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
[6] Yuen, T., Balan, L., Centea, D., Apostolou, K., & Singh, I., (2015) Implementation of a blended instruction-based and problem-based
learning strategy in a second-year engineering curriculum” Proceedings of the Canadian Eng. Education Assoc. Conf. (CEEA 2015),
Hamilton, May 31 – June 3, 2015.
[7] Capon, N., & Kuhn, D. (2004). What's So Good About Problem-Based Learning? Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 61–79., 2004
[8] Dochy, F., Segers M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of Problem-Based Learning: A Meta-Analysis. Learning and
Instruction, 13, 533–568.
[9] Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of Problem-Based Learning: A Meta-Analysis from the Angle of
Assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 27–61.
[10] Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational
technology, 35(5), 31-38.
[11] Mills, J. E., & Treagust, D.F. (2003). Engineering education-Is problem-based or project-based learning the answer. Australasian journal of
engineering education, 3(2), 2-16.
[12] Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., Palincsar, A. (1991) Motivating project-based learning: sustaining
the doing, supporting the learning, Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 1991, 369-398.
[13] Thomas, J., (2000) A review of the research on project-based learning. The Autodesk Foundation, 2000.
[14] Balan, L, Centea, D., Yuen, T., & Singh, I., (2015) Capstone Projects with Limited Budget as an Effective Method for Experiential Learning,
Proceedings of the Canadian Eng. Education Assoc. Conf. (CEEA 2015), Hamilton, May 31 – June 3, 2015, Paper #150.
[15] R.M. Lima, D. Mesquita, S. Fernandes, C. Marihno-Araujo and M.L. Tabelo. (2015). Modelling the Assessment of Transversal
Competencies in Project based Learning, , Development of a Global Network for PBL and Engineering Education, Donostia - San Sebastian,
July 6-9 2015, pp. 12-23.