The level of complexity of the above activity is compatible with higher education, where it is common to find classes with more students. What was requested requires more time (four weeks), more coordination of efforts, and documentation of what is done: a report that constitutes an artifact to be submitted to the tutor. With such characteristics, the activity seems to fit what is defined by PjBL, since such methodology has little defined formalism. The use of the OpenPBL framework includes the platform, which allows for a more sophisticated learning evaluation process.

In the presented rubric, the criterion Organization and quality of the presentation has the assessment done (by the tutor) on the group that made the presentation. And this mixes with other assessment criteria, made on each student, and where the combination of who assesses varies from one to the other. Once more it is important to hightlight that the teacher just need to setup the activity, but all the calculations and score ponderation management is managed by the OpenPBL platform.

This time I configured the activity to allow comments by groupmates on each student's assessment. Thus, it will be possible for the assessed student, in addition to the grade, also to receive the justification on which it was based.

If the rubric suffered an increase in the number of criteria in relation to the example on the OpenPBL page for small groups, however, it was simplified by the scale used (0-10). Thus, both the assessment configuration process and its execution end up being much simpler and faster.

The steps given are similar to those of the previous example, with the addition of the novelties of this example. The class in which the activity is presented (1) works in a similar way, with more students participating. After all, we have a whole class, which needs to interact to form groups.

The guidelines for the tutor say nothing about how to group students. Thus, the tutor can choose how to group the students (2):

• determine who will participate in which group;
• allow students to form groups; or
• leave it to the groups to be randomly formed by the OpenPBL app.

The app supports all these grouping options.

Over the following weeks until the closing day of the activity (3), the tutor can interact with the groups during regular classes, or can interact virtually, through instant messaging or videoconferencing. This virtual monitoring can be important for carrying out a more appropriate work, including to arrive at a better quality report.

Upon receiving the reports (via the OpenPBL app) the tutor makes the appropriate assessments (4), and will watch the presentations to evaluate other criteria provided for in the activity. During the presentation or afterwards, colleagues can grade the presentations of groups they are not part of (5).

The same occurs in the evaluation between the components of each group, who can rate the group collection and comment on each evaluated criterion (6). This gives the evaluated student a better opportunity to reflect on how he, his attitudes and ideas are perceived by his groupmates.

Receiving assessments goes until the date set by the teacher, as well as releasing the consolidation of all grades calculated in this tangle of weighting calculations that is performed by the app.

Be aware that both examples cited in this section are available (in English only) in the OpenPBL app. They are available as open educational resources, and you can copy them to your account created through the OpenPBL app. After all, in addition to creating active learning activities, the OpenPBL platform also allows the sharing of created activities, so that educators can help each other implement active learning.