# Challenge-Based Learning and Scrum as Enablers of 4.0 Technologies in Engineering Education
## 4 Discussion
### Comparison with Existing CBL Implementations  
[PERSON] et al. (2019) explored the implementation of CBL in embedded engineering as part of the CDIO Syllabus, emphasizing the relevance of having enough planning resources since the instructors of each course spend considerable time together outlining the main goals, synchronizing the course curricula and agreeing on the evaluation of the project work. To increase students' motivation and dedication to the project, they also recommend, as crucial aspects to consider, the challenging nature of the topic, the use of technological devices (e.g., robots), and competition against other project teams. Compared with our research, similarities are found concerning the amount of time teachers invest in preparing each session and the relevance of technological devices, along with a challenging topic within the academic experience. In contrast, an aspect not considered in our research that could be interesting to explore in future research is the incorporation of academic competitions between the different groups taught through CBL as a didactic technique. On the other hand, [PERSON] et al. (2020) worked on two educational resources to aid in conceptualizing, designing, and researching CBL for curriculum designers and professors. The first one consists of CBL design principles, offering advice on developing CBL courses, while the second one is a curriculum-mapping instrument designed to recognize gaps, superposition, and disarrangements in CBL implementation. Regarding our study, both educational resources were part of the research. First, they helped establish CBL design fundamentals to develop CBL-based courses in engineering, and second, they served as a curriculum-mapping tool to find gaps and differences in CBL applications compared with traditional classes. Other studies have defined diverse disciplinary and transverse competencies for CBL implementations, where the following can be highlighted: (a) recognize and register the root cause of problems; (b) structure an activity program to implement proposals and optimize resources systematically; (c) evaluate choices to solve problems based on the knowledge and application of engineering tools, and (d) make proposals for solving problems related to the practice of engineering ([PERSON] et al., 2019). When comparing these findings with the CBL4.0 model shown in Figure 1, on which our research was based, it is possible to note certain similarities. In particular, the definition of parameters and obtaining of information is related to registering the root causes of the problems or the ideation of proposals that correspond to structuring the activities to implement the suggested proposals. Complementarily, implementing an action plan and its development is related to the alternatives proposed to solve problems based on practical engineering solutions, such as those associated with Industry 4.0, and addressed through our CBL4.0 proposal and its applied examples. From the point of view of educational paradigms, the constructivist approach is characterized by educators acting as facilitators, encouraging students to develop and understand the role of engineers through solving challenges ([PERSON] et al., 2019). In this sense, CBL requires environments suitable for a student-centered constructivist learning organization, addressing real and open problems to complete the challenge, producing a solution based on concrete actions, and motivating students to analyze, design, develop, and execute the best solution to the challenge, along with defining educator's role in the process as a coach ([PERSON] et al., 2019). Concerning our study, the concepts underlying the constructive perspective on which CBL is based were evidenced in the mediating role of knowledge exercised by the teachers who implemented the CBL4.0 model presented in this research, putting the student at the center of the teaching-learning process.