Mechanical Engineering Program Based on PBL Principles: An ... · PBL 2010 Congresso Internacional. São Paulo, Brasil, 8-12 de fevereiro de 2010. providing guidelines for using these

PBL 2010 Congresso Internacional. São Paulo, Brasil, 8-12 de fevereiro de 2010.

Mechanical Engineering Program Based on PBL Principles:

An Evaluation Using the CIPP model

Héctor C. Noriega1, Maria Echavarria

2, Finn Ommestrup

3

1Facultad de Ciencias de la Ingeniería – Universidad Austral de Chile (UACh)

Casilla 567 – Valdivia – Chile

2Escuela de Ingeniería de Antioquia - Colombia

3Holstebrots College - Denmark

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract. This work is focused on the evaluation of the Mechanical

Engineering program at the Universidad Austral de Chile – UACh, which has

been implemented following PBL principles. The evaluation of this curricular

change aims to compose recommendations for improvement of the design,

planning, and implementation. In methodological terms, the evaluation follows

the general principles concerning improvement/accountability-oriented

evaluation approaches. Specifically, it was chosen the evaluation model called

CIPP, an acronym from its four core concepts: Context, Input, Process, and

Product evaluation. As a result of the application of these four interrelated

types of evaluation, UACh stakeholders should realize significant

improvements in terms of communication, faculty training, implementation of

the change in the semester still under the traditional approach and provide

incentives to the professors that are carrying out the change.

1. Introduction

Educational stakeholders need information to make decisions about the ways to

reinforce or close some programs, to meet internal and external accountability

requirements and, to spread certain practices to related issues. Accordingly, this article

addresses the problem concerning the impact identification of the PBL approach at the

Universidad Austral de Chile, as implemented in the Mechanical Engineering program

to meets specific demands for change in engineering education. For this purpose it is

applied an improvement/accountability evaluation model.

In the educational environment, assessment represents the process of observing

learning, describing, collecting, recording, scoring and interpreting information about a

student’s or one’s own learning. In the same context, evaluation is defined as value

judgment of a process, a product or event. The evaluation is formative when the

intention is to identify scope and potential for change and improvement. The evaluation

is summative when retrospective and judging is made about processes, products or past

events. The program evaluation has a history that predates by at least 150 years the

evaluation’s consolidation as a discipline, and as a maturing profession, since the

sixties. Contemporary literature in the field uses the term evaluation models in the sense

that each of these models “characterizes its author’s view of the main concepts and

structure of evaluation work, while at the same time serving the exemplary function of


providing guidelines for using these concepts to arrive at defensible descriptions,

judgments, and recommendations” (Madaus & Kellaghan, 2000, p. 19). In operational

terms, the program to implement an evaluation is a process that cover planning,

development, reporting and applying the information (descriptive and judgmental) about

“some object’s merit and worth in order to guide decision making, support

accountability, disseminate effective practices, and increased understanding of the

involved phenomena” (Stufflebeam, 2000, p. 280).

The Universidad Austral de Chile (UACh) has been carrying out a curricular

change to answer external and internal challenges. The external issues come from the

tertiary education policies by the Chilean Education Minister, denoting preoccupation

with the social inequities in the access to undergraduate studies, the insertion in the

globalized markets and the economical development of the country (MECESUP,

MECESUP 2 Project: tertiary education for the knowledge society, 2005), (WORLD-

BANK, 2005). In terms of internal issues, the UACh approved in 2005 an integrated set

of policies called “undergraduate curricular orientations”. There are four motivations

sustaining this decision (UACh, 2005):

a) Improve the position of UACh in the higher education system, as well as the learning

levels in terms of quality and equity between its several undergraduate programs;

b) Establish a curricular structure and a learning process centered on the student;

c) Certify the several cycles of formation, assuring and recognizing the achievement of

the necessary competencies for an appropriate professional practice, and promote the

students mobility, and;

d) Establish a suitable link between undergraduate and postgraduate studies.

At Engineering Faculty level, a diagnosis about curricular matters, coming from

a SWOT analysis, and the institutional policies, pointed out that it is urgent to introduce

a curricular reformulation based on competencies, to adapt the internal regulations to be

functional with the curricular change to be implemented and, to develop the pertinent

staff training to put into practice the new educational model. The curricular change

follows the Moesby’s Model that is based in four phases: investigation, adoption,

implementation, and institutionalization (Moesby, 2006, p. 46). The first semester

(March-July) of 2008 started the implementation phase of the curricular change at the V

semester of the Mechanical Engineering program.

2. Evaluation Models

Daniel Stufflebeam identifies and assesses twenty two approaches often employed to

evaluate programs and groups them in the following three categories (Stufflebeam,

2001, p. 11):

• Pseudo evaluations

• Questions and/or Methods Oriented

• Improvement/Accountability

• Social Agenda/Advocacy

The first category includes some questionable practices that occur when

evaluators and their clients are sometimes tempted to shade, selectively release, or even

falsify findings. This efforts that might look like sound evaluations, are termed pseudo

evaluations because they fail to produce and report valid assessment of merit and worth


to all right-to-know audiences. The second category includes question oriented

approaches that address specific questions, and method oriented approaches that

typically use a particular method. In this sense, Stufflebeam (2001) clarifies that the

evaluation of the program’s merit or worth is a secondary consideration for

question/methods oriented approaches. The third category, encompasses the approaches

that stress the need to fully assess a program’s merit or worth, because these kind of

studies are “expansive and seek comprehensiveness in considering the full range of

questions and criteria needed to assess a program’s value” (Stufflebeam, 2001, p. 42).

Thus, the improvement/accountability oriented evaluation approaches emphasize

improvement through serving program decisions, providing consumers with judgment

of optional programs and services, and helping consumers to examine the merits of

competing institutions and programs. The fourth category includes the social

agenda/advocacy approaches, which are directed to making a difference in society

through program evaluation. According to Stufflebeam, these last approaches “seek to

ensure that all segments of society have equal access to educational and social

opportunities and services”, at the time “they have an affirmative action bent toward

giving preferential treatment through program evaluation to the disadvantaged”

(Stufflebeam, 2001, p. 62).

The evaluation model used in this research was chose from the

improvement/accountability category and it is called CIPP model, an acronym from its

four core concepts: Context, Input, Process, and Product evaluation. As stated by

Stufflebeam (2000, p. 279), “Context evaluation assess needs, problems and

opportunities as basis for defining goals and priorities and judging the significance of

outcomes. Input evaluations assess alternative approaches to meeting needs of planning

programs and allocating resources. Process evaluations assess the implementation of

plans to guide activities and later to help explain outcomes. Product evaluations identify

intended and unintended outcomes both to help keep the process on track and determine

effectiveness”.

Figure 1 represents the relation between the basic elements of the CIPP model.

The inner circle represents the “core values” that provide the foundation for one’s

evaluation. The circle that surrounds the values is divided in four evaluation focuses

which are present in any program or endeavor: goals, plans, actions, and outcomes. The

external circle relates the evaluation type which is appropriate to each of the four

focuses of evaluation.

According to Stufflebeam (2000, pp. 280-281) there is a code of ethics

undergirding the CIPP model. First it has a strong orientation to service and principles

of a free society. Thus, the thrust of CIPP evaluation is to provide sound information

that will help service providers regularly assess and improve services and make

effective and efficient use of resources, time, and technology in order to appropriately

and equitably serve the well-being of rightful beneficiaries. Second, the CIPP

evaluations must be grounded in the democratic principles of equity and fairness

amalgamated in the concept of stakeholders: those persons who are intended to use the

findings, persons who may otherwise be affected by the evaluation and those expected

to contribute to the evaluation. Third, the CIPP model reflects an objectivist orientation.

According to this, the resulting evaluations are based in the theory that moral good is

objective and independent of personal or merely human feelings.


Figure 1. Key Components of the CIPP Evaluation Model (Stufflebeam, 2003)

In methodological terms, several methods have been recommended for CIPP

evaluations as shown in Table 1 (the product evaluation is divided into the subparts of

impact, effectiveness, sustainability, and transportability).

Table 1. Methods of potential use in CIPP evaluations (Stufflebeam, 2003b, p. 16)

Also, as help in planning and carrying the evaluation, can be used a set of

checklists which were designed to help evaluators and their clients to plan, to conduct,

and to assess evaluations based on the CIPP model (Wingate, 2009). For Stufflebeam

(2001, p. 72), the core idea is that individually or in combination, those checklists


should provide guidance for “planning and contracting for evaluations; collecting,

organizing, analyzing,, synthesizing, and reporting information; managing evaluation

operations; and arriving at judgments of merit and worth”.

According to the main objectives stated for a context evaluation is an activity

than can be initiated before, during, or even after a project or improvement effort. This

point is pertinent to discuss in the circumstance of the educational development under

evaluation in this research: the improvement aimed by the project is based on

preliminary context evaluation about the reality of the tertiary education in the country

and its adequacy for the actual country’s development and international insertion, as

well as on the national and institutional context of the engineering education.

Consequently, at the actual implementation stage of the PBL development in the

Mechanical Engineering program, the FCI/UACh needs continue collecting, organizing,

filing, and reporting context evaluation data, since needs, problems, and opportunities

are subject to change.

3. The Study Case and Metodology

The educational development evaluation reported in this paper accounts for the VI

semester of the Mechanical Engineering Program, at the Universidad Austral de Chile.

The concept of competence that has been adopted at FCI follows the definition by the

United States Department of Education, where a competency “is the combination of

skills, abilities, and knowledge needed to perform a specific task” (USDE, 2002). Figure

2 provides a demarcation among terms and assists in the visual differentiation of

hierarchies.

Figure 2. Hierarchies of postsecondary outcomes (USDE, 2002, p. 8)

The hierarchy presented in Figure 2, and the consequent definition of involved

terms, shows that the skills and knowledge are acquired through learning experiences,

meanwhile different combinations of skills, abilities and knowledge acquired by the

individual are the matter to achieve competencies through integrative learning

experiences. Ensuing, the combination of different competencies possessed by the

individual are combined in carrying out different demonstrations or tasks. In this

context, the curricular challenge is to determine which competencies can be bundled


together to provide which types of learners, the optimal combination of skills, and

knowledge needed to perform a specific task.

The school of Civil Mechanical Engineering of the Universidad Austral de Chile

developed systematic competencies identification. In this, employers, graduates and

engineering professors were invited to answer specific questionnaires, and to participate

in open discussion forums. The resulting professional profile for this program is stated

in terms of 10 competencies, covering the technical, procedural and technical domains.

The master structure inspired in PBL principles is organized around themes (which

cover one semester) that allow the use of project work as the basic curricular

educational element. The different kind of projects for the selected themes that are used

through the curriculum are “task projects” from semester one to four, “discipline

projects” from semester five to eight and, “problem projects” from semester nine to

eleven1.

The theme “mechanisms” drive all the learning activities in the VI semester as

shown if Figure 3. Courses 1 and 2 are p-courses, aiming the development of theoretical

and professional knowledge, skills and abilities necessary to run a project on

mechanisms, and through their integration, to achieve certain levels of specific

competencies. Courses 3 and 4 are general courses with the objective of providing the

fundamental and general knowledge for mechanical engineers. In this structure, the

project used the 48% of the students’ working load, and the last 52% is distributed

between the four courses, two of them project courses (assessed through the project) and

the other two general courses assessed independently. Also, as seen in Figure 3, the first

5 weeks have 21% of the students’ working load dedicated to the project, changing to

50% between weeks 6 and 10, and 71% from week 11 to 15. The final two weeks of the semester are dedicated to assessment.

Figure 3. Program for the 6th

semester of Mechanical Engineering

Specifically, the integration of two p-courses and the development of a project

on mechanisms aims to achieve the four competencies indicated in Table 2. These

competences are achieve through a process of four semesters, during a curricular cicle

named licence, as established in a mandatory policy declaration of the Universidad

Austral de Chile.

1 For a discussion about these project types, see (De Graaff & Kolmos, 2003).


The 6th

semester under evaluation had six students that were organized in one

group. The facilitation was provided by two professors, that further than the proper

goals of the facilitation in a PBL context, aims to create facilitation know-how as well

as to allow a degree of reflection when reviewing theoretical material and deciding how

to do the facilitation according to the circumstances.

Table 2. Competencies and performances for the 6th

semester

During the contact phase at the first meeting, the team facilitator was introduced

as well as the member of group, a dialogue was carried out trying to clarify the mutual

expectations and objectives, and the three alternative problems were under screening of

the group. Also, different roles were assigned to the team members following one

criterion: every team member proposed himself to the role he feels less prepared to

carry out in terms of abilities and skills. The supporting argumentation to this agreement

is the challenge to develop those roles where every team member perceives a lack of

skills and abilities. At a second facilitation session, the MBTI test was applied, using a

free version available on the internet (Humanmetrics, 2009). From a didactic point of

view, the applications of the MBTI test is justified by the identification of member

characteristics which can enhance or disrupt the team work performance.

To improve the facilitation activity it was necessary to prepare a set of didactic

activities to develop during the facilitation meetings. In other words, to avoid

improvisation during the facilitation meetings, it is necessary to plan some questions,

considering the formative assessment and conclusions of the preceding meeting, the

stage of the project development, and the planned activities expressed by the students in

their Gantt chart.

Table 3 shows the assessment structure for the PBL implementation in the 6th

semester of the Mechanical Engineering program, and reflects the institutional absence

of restrictions to implement any assessment method. There have been six types of

activities carried out at different instants of the semester, aiming also at different goals

and improvements in the teaching and learning process. In Table 3 the “x” indicates a

formative assessment regarding a competence or p-courses’ skills, abilities and

knowledge. When a specific percentage is shown in Table 3, the assessment is

summative (but also the result is conceived as formative and used to give feedback to

the students), and the corresponding value is the relative weight to achieve the final

grade in the “module VI – mechanisms”.

Based on Table 1, during planning and carrying out the evaluation the following

methods were used: document review, on-site observer, stakeholder’s interviews, focus

groups and, synthesis/final report. Also, the CIPP checklists were a significant support


in terms to include all the involved issues. Table 4 shows the main issues under

consideration to prepare the stakeholder’s interviews and focus groups.

Table 3. Assessment agenda for the 6th semester

Table 4. Main issues regarding the evaluation

During the research process it is possible to differentiate three steps, namely:

discussion of the conceptual dimension, design of instruments and data collection and

analysis, interpretation and report development.


The data collection was performed during a visit of the team to UACh for a full

week carrying out the review of documentation related to the implementation, the

interviews to managers and professors involved, and the focus groups with students.The

electronic records of interviews were sent to a third party transcript. Afterwards, and

based on the transcriptions prepared, summaries in Spanish of all interviews were made.

Afterwards, the summaries of the interviews were sent to each interviewee for review,

amendments and authorizations to be used in the final report. Student focus groups

electronic records were also duly transcript.

The ethical issues of any research work have been reviewed and discussed by

many authors and most of them agreed that those issues cannot be avoided, they are

always present (Schwandt, 1998). However, many also tend to agree that these issues

can be addressed with good communication and openness as the evaluation team

decided to do. It is important to bring into attention that one member of the evaluation

team was the leader of the curriculum change and its implementation at the mechanical

engineering program at UACh. Therefore, the team was especially careful to make sure

that he was not directly involved in the interviews and focus groups carried out during

the field work. Furthermore, from the beginning the group made sure to always speak

respectfully to their stakeholders, transparent reporting of research purposes, so that

their participation was voluntary and informed. In interviews always ask permission to

record and transcribe the contents. Also advising the interviewees of confidentially of

the recording as it was only initially reviewed by the interviewer who prepared a

summary of the transcript, sent it by email for review asking also for expressed

permission to use the information in the report.

4. Results Discussion

The following four subsections contain a discussion of the interviews, focus groups and

documents reviewed during the evaluation. It is organized according the four elements

of the CIPP evaluation model.

4.1. Context

In spite of the vision for the change is in the strategic plan of the Engineering Faculty,

there is not any official declaration presenting the competences aimed for the

Mechanical Engineer formed at the UACh, as well as about the master structure and

modularization. Managers have a wider understanding of the needs that motivate the

change, going from the insertion of the country in a globalized world, to the institutional

policies and specific curricular and didactical issues at the Engineering Faculty of

UACh. Special mention is made to issues such as students’ desertion rates, low number

of students completing their studies in the scheduled time, low interest for engineering

studies and, the limitations of the traditional approach centered on the professor.

The teachers are informed about the reasons for change, having a particular

association to the concept of student-centered curriculum. Also, it is evident how the

PBL principles impact students’ motivation, particularly because they are working with

problems, and those problems are from the real world.

The students were not aware of the reasons that motivate the change, but they

show a good understanding of the PBL meaning and feel comfortable with the new

curricular structure and relationship with the professor. In the same context, the


individual responsibility to drive their own learning is valued by students. Regardless of

not declaring an appropriate definition of competence, the student mentioned

spontaneously two out of ten competences from the Mechanical Engineering profile.

4.2. Input

Managers agreed that available resources were appropriate even if there wasn’t an

individual budget for the implementation, because initially it was conceived as part of a

major project financed by the UACh and a governmental program called MECESUP,

which aims to improve the quality and equity of tertiary education (MECESUP, 2008).

This project, called AUS 0301, pays for the activities of competencies identification,

professional profile definition for the Mechanical Engineering program (and another 6

engineering programs), initial faculty training, construction of 2000 m2 of laboratories

with equipment, and 64 rooms especially settled for team work.

Professors made clear that there were not incentives to promote their

commitment in the implementation of the new curricula, having in consideration the

different conception of the professor’s role that demanded a complete review of the

didactics and content of the courses. They agreed that resources in infrastructure and

equipment are the proper to guaranty the project exit. Also, one semester before starting

the implementation, one professor initiated studies in the Master on Problem Based

Learning at Aalborg University, Denmark. This activity gave the opportunity to have a

conceptual and practical discussion with Aalborg University’s professors, as well as

with colleagues of other countries that were part of the master program. Although this

possibility for sustaining a feedback during the implementation, there wasn’t formal

training to the staff in all the aspects involving the PBL approach. For this reason,

managers and professors mentioned the faculty training as the weakness activity during

the preparation of the PBL implementation. Having into account the six elements that

have been found in process of change (Kolmos & de Graaff, 2007, p. 38), there are two

of them not present at UACh’s change: skills and incentives.

4.3. Process

Managers recognize that during the implementation the weakest point has been the

faculty training, mainly because during the implementation process there was a lot of

expectation on a new approved MECESUP project, but a delay of more than a year is

introducing frustration and mining any rising dedication to the change. Also, they

recognize a lack of direct participation during the process. Still, for one third of the

managers the easiest part of the process has been the students and the methodology,

meanwhile two thirds of them are convinced that the major difficulties has been to

involve professors in the process.

An analysis of professors’ interviews has shown a relative degree of

commitment with the curricular change, in terms of design, planning and

implementation, as well as with the new assessment structure. All of them feel

comfortable with the PBL approach. For 50% of the professors interviewed the easiest

part of the process has been the PBL methodology itself, meanwhile for one third of

them the major difficulty has been to convince colleagues participate and practice an

assessment based on outcomes and not merely in contents.


Finally, under the process element, the students highlight a closer relationship

with their classmates and, state that professors still are a source of knowledge but now

are acting more as a guide instead of just having the right answer.

4.4. Product

At the product element of the CIPP evaluation model, the goal is to identity intended

and unintended outcomes, both of higher relevance to help to keep the change on track

and determine effectiveness. Thus, for managers it is relevant to identify the impact on

three principal indicators, because they are also part of the strategic alignment of the

UACh: student retention and graduation rates at scheduled time. They judge that the real

program evaluation will be necessary at the time that students will start to work as

professionals formed through a PBL curriculum. Also, professors prefer to wait a few

years before giving an opinion about the competences achievement. For students, the

size of the groups and the magnitude of each project, are issues under development in

the Mechanical Engineering program, since several adjusts have been produced at the

time of planning a new semester. Also, it is necessary to work in the facilitator

alignment, because the styles and emphasis differ from one to other. There is a relevant

unintended outcome that emerges from the implementation, since a discussion is

occurring between professors involved in mechanical engineering teaching, having

themes like: the pertinence of projects for each theme, and the knowledge, skills and

abilities to be developed in the courses to serve the project, and the proper assessment

tools to measure the learning outcomes. Also, it is important to mention the internal

know-how that is under development at the FCI/UACh, constituting the base to

establish a sustainable change.

5. Conclusions

The use of CIPP evaluation model has been a valuable tool in this research, providing a

extensive understanding of the new curriculum implementation. The categorized review

of documents and themes to compound the interviews and focus groups were well

suited following the four elements of the model.

In terms of context, it was found that remain the needs, problems and

opportunities that the institution had as inspiration and leitmotiv to carry out the

curricular change based in PBL principles. Even though there is a clear identification of

these context elements by managers, there is not the same understanding by professors

and definitely are unknown for the students who participate in the focus groups.

At the time of the start of the implementation, there was available a broad

competencies identification that sustained the definition of the professional profile of

the mechanical engineer of UACh, and the infrastructure to implement team work and

laboratory activities. Specific activities of the implementation such as master structure,

modularization, facilitation and assessment were planned to develop as part of a Master

in PBL, for semesters VI to XI. At the same time, the Chilean government approved the

funding to a specific project aiming for the creation of the internal capacity building to

carry out the implementation. Internally, a team of UACh professionals were working

on the edition of the internal computational platform to the requirements of the change

under implementation.


The approaches selected to meet needs, the planned programs and consequent

activities, and the allocated resources achieve different degrees of development. The

master structure, modularization, facilitation and assessment were carried out from

semester VI to XI. The initial IV semesters should be developed jointly with the faculty

training as part of the new MECESUP project, but at the time of the present conference

it didn´t start, having a delay of more than one a half year.

When evaluating the identified intended and untended outcomes there are

impaired results. There is a master structure for the mechanical engineering program

with a complete modularization for the last seven semesters. From semester five and

eight there has been a complete implementation including modularization, projects,

contents, facilitation and assessment. For semesters nine to eleven the plan is complete.

By doing these activities the professors involved develop a knowhow and a feedback

that will be used to improve the task to implement for the first time and the ones to be

repeated, mainly in facilitation and assessment. Also, the institutionalization of the

change shows concrete results, but still there are actions to implement. The less

developed plan, with limited results to evaluate is the faculty training and the

implementation of the development and implementation of the PBL curriculum in

semesters I to IV. Finally, the products associated to the impact indicators that are

relevant for managers are not measurable at this implementation stage.

In general, significant improvement is required in terms of communication,

faculty training, implementation of the change in the semesters still under the traditional

approach, and provide incentives to the professors who are carrying out the change.

6. References

De Graaff, E., & Kolmos, A. (2003). Characteristics of Problem Based Learning. he International Journal

of Engineering Education , 19 (5), 657-662.

Humanmetrics. (2009). HumanMetrics. Retrieved november 24, 2009, from

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm

Kolmos, A., & de Graaff, E. (2007). Process of Changing to PBL. In E. de Graaff, & A. Kolmos,

Management the Change: implementation of problem-based and project-based leaning in engineering

(pp. 31-43). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Madaus, G., & Kellaghan, T. (2000). Models, Metaphors, and Definitions in Evaluation. In D.

Stufflebeam, G. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan, Evaluation Models. Viewpoints on educational and human

services evaluation (pp. 19-31). Hingham (MA): Kluwer Academic ublishers.

MECESUP. (2005, May). MECESUP 2 Project: tertiary education for the knowledge society. Retrieved

April 26, 2009, from Project Implementation Plan:

http://www.mecesup.cl/mece2_mie_en/proy_mece2/pip_en.pdf

MECESUP. (2008). Programa MECESUP. Retrieved november 27, 2009, from

http://www.mece2.com/portal/

Moesby, E. (2006). Implementing Project Oriented and Problem Based Learning (POPBL) in Institutions

and Sub-institutions. Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education , 5 (2), 45-52.

Schwandt, T. (1998). Constructivist, Interpretivist Approaches to Human Inquiry. In N. Denzin, & Y.

Lincoln, The Lanscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues (pp. 221-259). Thousand Oaks:

Sage.


Stufflebeam, D. (2001). Evaluation Models. New Directions for Evaluation (89), 7-98.

Stufflebeam, D. (2000). The CIPP Model for Evaluation. In D. Stufflebeam, G. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan,

Evaluation Models: viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (2nd ed., pp. 279-317).

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Stufflebeam, D. (2003). The CIPP Model for Evaluation. In T. Kellaghan, & D. Stufflebeam,

International Handbook of Educational Evaluation (pp. 31-62). Dordrecht, GB: Kluiewer Academic

Publishers.

Stufflebeam, D. (2003b). The CIPP Model for Evaluation. 2003 Annual Conference of the Oregon

Program Evaluators Network, (pp. 1-67). Portland, OR.

UACh. (2005). Orientaciones Curriculares de Pregrado, Decreto N° 271/2005. Valdivia: Universidad

Austral de Chile.

USDE. (2002). Defining and Assessing Learning: exploring competency-based initiatives. Washington

D.C.: US Department of Education - National center for Education Statistics.

Wingate, L. (2009). Evaluation Checklists. Retrieved november 24, 2009, from Western Michigan

University: http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/

WORLD-BANK. (2005, March 30). Project Appraisal Document: tertiary education finance for results

project. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from Report N° 31336-CL:

http://www.mecesup.cl/proy_mece2/Pad.pdf

Mechanical Engineering Program Based on PBL Principles: An ... · PBL 2010 Congresso Internacional. São Paulo, Brasil, 8-12 de fevereiro de 2010. providing guidelines for using these

Documents