Perceptions of Pre-Service Teachers in a Pedagogical Residency Program Teaching Physics Using a PBL Approach

Abstract

Background: Unlike medical training, science teacher training in Brazil does not include PBL as a curricular methodology. However, there is a Pedagogical Residency Program (PRP) that allows teaching experiences that are different from those provided in the undergraduate course. Thus, in this research, we propose a formative intervention in PBL for scholarship holders in the Pedagogical Residency Program (hereinafter Residents), aiming to answer the following question: “What are the perceptions of pre-service teachers about the planning, implementation, and evaluation of a PBL intervention in physics teaching?”. Methods: Five Residents taught an elective course specially designed for the application of PBL to teach secondary school physics. The training of the Residents in PBL occurred almost simultaneously with the offering of the elective subject. To reveal their perceptions, we collected Residents’ teaching plans, problem scenarios, and reflective analyses. Results: The results demonstrate that the Residents encountered several difficulties in developing and implementing the PBL methodology when teaching physics. Regarding development, the difficulties lie in coherently aligning the learning objectives with the highly complex active methodology of PBL. In addition, another clear difficulty is developing a problem situation appropriate to the knowledge that one wishes to develop. During the intervention, the Residents realized how difficult it is to implement PBL to allow students to develop skills and knowledge in a reflective way. Conclusions: The results indicate that PRP is necessary to develop methodologies such as PBL, as it allows supervision and reflection on practice. However, we also observed that the results point to the urgent need to introduce PBL in the initial training of science teachers; this process can be established in three stages: strategically studying lesson planning for the implementation of PBL, developing problem situations that align with the knowledge that one wishes to develop, and developing metacognitive regulation and argumentation skills to conduct interventions based on PBL.

1. Introduction

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is one of the teaching approaches that falls under Inquiry-Based Learning, where students take an active stance when solving a problem in order to acquire new knowledge and various skills (Alt & Raichel, 2020; Morey et al., 2021; Shahbodin et al., 2023; Uluçınar, 2023). In this approach, the problem to be solved does not have a simple or closed answer, prompting students to interpret information, develop hypotheses, and make decisions in order to integrate scientific knowledge and present a possible solution (Lenkauskaite & Mazeikiene, 2012; Alt & Raichel, 2020). Another relevant aspect of the PBL approach is the role of the teacher or tutor, that is, a more experienced person who helps the group to identify the demands that the problem brings, search for necessary information, analyze the findings, design possible solutions, and evaluate the process (Aidoo, 2023; Sattarova et al., 2023).

Thus, PBL is carried out in small groups of students, accompanied by a tutor, to solve complex problems that draw on elements of the students’ real context (B. P. Silva et al., 2024) or on an imaginary, creative, or fictional context that motivates them to participate and engage in problem-solving (Lenkauskaite & Mazeikiene, 2012; Akben, 2019; Cavadas et al., 2022). Therefore, according to Akben (2019), “it can be suggested that the problem situation to be developed is the most important step in the implementation of the approach” (p. 232).

Because of this emphasis on real problems, some medical training courses structure their entire curriculum around PBL. Johansson et al. (2020) point out that PBL contributes to individuals’ real learning, cultural environment, social interaction, agency, and communication, which are important skills for health professionals. Although the medical field provides numerous real problems for PBL, Phelan et al. (2022) point out the need for the problem to be designed in a way that respects the students’ cognitive abilities, especially in the initial years of the course.

Science is also considered an area that is conducive to PBL, especially when problems are socio-scientific (SSI) or relate to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) (Akben, 2019; Rubini et al., 2019; Hernández-Ramos et al., 2021). These multidisciplinary approaches are essential in preparing students to respond to complex economic, social, and environmental challenges, such as those presented by COVID-19 and climate change (Kuvac & Koc, 2018; Smith et al., 2022). Uluçınar (2023), in a meta-analysis that sought to identify the effect of PBL on academic performance in science education, found that the PBL approach has a strong effect on academic performance, regardless of the country where the study was conducted, the area of study, or the educational level. Several studies also indicate that the PBL approach helps promote scientific literacy (Rubini et al., 2019), self-regulation of learning (Alt & Raichel, 2020; Baptista, 2025), argumentation, engagement, and motivation (Hernández-Ramos et al., 2021), collaborative learning (Saputro et al., 2020), and critical thinking (Kuvac & Koc, 2018; Saputro et al., 2020).

All of these skills are important for building a society that can better address the challenges posed by the 21st century, such as Artificial Intelligence, climate change, unbridled consumption, social inequalities, food production, and distribution and environmental imbalances. Schools are the ideal setting for the implementation of PBL, as they offer a multiplicity of learning opportunities to young people. However, basic education teachers are not prepared to implement this approach. Research conducted by Akben (2019), Kuvac and Koc (2018), and Saputro et al. (2020) studied participants who received specific training to implement PBL. The metasynthesis developed by Dunst et al. (2019) analyzed 14 different types of teacher preparation in initial training. They observed that students’ active involvement in instructional practices improves their acquisition of skills, knowledge, and attitudes towards the learning process, indicating that PBL, compared to other methods, is an effective approach in teacher training. PBL falls under the “Course-Based Learning Methods” category, contributing significantly to academic performance and the development of skills, knowledge, and attitudes.

Despite the visible contributions of teacher training anchored in Problem-Based Learning (PBL), its application in initial science teacher training generally only occurs in research studies, in which teachers receive specific training in PBL (Kuvac & Koc, 2018; Akben, 2019; Saputro et al., 2020). Kuvac and Koc (2018) conducted a 10-week study with 51 pre-service science teachers. The experimental group studied the PBL model, and the control group studied the face-to-face model. The authors sought to understand the effect of PBL on attitudes toward the environment, the theme of the 10-week course. Thus, they used a personal information form and an environmental attitudes inventory. The PBL format proved to be more effective than the traditional format in developing environmental attitudes in pre-service teachers.

Cavadas et al. (2022) studied the integration of science and mathematics knowledge in pre-service teachers’ training using PBL. The authors developed an activity for pre-service science and mathematics teachers, structured around a research problem divided into two integrated problems. Using specific integration indicators, the authors were able to identify the level of integration between science and mathematics in pre-service teachers for each phase of the PBL activity. After solving the problem, the authors considered that all participants achieved integration with meaningful connections between the ideas of science and mathematics.

Novikasari (2020) used PBL to integrate mathematical content knowledge (MCK) with mathematical pedagogical content knowledge (MPCK) in pre-service teachers. The results showed significant differences between MCK and MPCK in classes that participated in PBL activities compared to conventional classes. These differences highlight the need for future teachers, in the PBL model, to take control of learning activities and be active in the search for solutions.

In order to identify possible contributions of PBL to the development of self-efficacy and critical thinking, Saputro et al. (2020) developed a quasi-experimental study with 44 pre-service teachers, with a control group (n = 22) and an experimental group (n = 22). Both groups studied the same topics (related to science) in three weekly meetings for six weeks, but the experimental group worked on three problem situations in the PBL approach. Both groups completed, before and after the intervention, the Self-Efficacy Scale (SES) and the Critical Thinking Questionnaire (CTQ). The results indicate that the PBL approach is more effective in increasing critical thinking skills and self-efficacy. In addition to being efficient in developing scientific and pedagogical knowledge, self-efficacy, and critical thinking skills, PBL should be taught to pre-service teachers so that future teachers can apply it in their classrooms. The challenges involve the perceptions of teachers in receiving training on PBL, the adequate development of problems that allow its applicability in basic education, and the application of PBL itself.

In terms of formulating appropriate problems, experts state that the problem needs to be close to reality, relevant to students, challenging, and structured within the cognitive possibilities of those solving it (Lenkauskaite & Mazeikiene, 2012; Akben, 2019; B. P. Silva et al., 2024); it also depends on collaboration to improve learning (Smith et al., 2022). However, Lenkauskaite and Mazeikiene (2012) point out that PBL requires students to invest significant effort and motivation to solve problems, and students are more likely to be motivated and engaged if the problem is of personal interest to them (B. P. Silva et al., 2024). To meet these demands, the problem can also be fictional (Akçay, 2009). Thus, the development of problems is one of the elements that future teachers should approach with sufficient attention and care.

Ekici (2016) observed, based on a PBL training course for pre-service science teachers, that participants can develop good problems—relating everyday life to scientific events—that are consistent with learning objectives. However, when applying PBL in the basic education science classroom, participants revealed some difficulties, such as classroom management, overcrowded classes, inability to ensure the participation of all students, and the inability of students to transfer knowledge to everyday issues. These issues mean that pre-service teachers, despite considering the PBL method appropriate, find it difficult to implement it in basic education.

Regarding problem-solving in a PBL approach, A. C. Silva and De Chiaro (2018) analyzed two different teachers, one with expertise in argumentation and the other without. The results show that expertise in argumentation allows teachers to perform pragmatic, argumentative, and epistemic discursive actions that result in a greater occurrence of argumentative elements, such as point of view, justification, and counterargument, leading to critical and reflective learning. Marthaliakirana et al. (2022) also observe the promotion of critical and reflective thinking when metacognitive prompts are provided by teachers. Some prompts used by the teacher involved the use of mind maps, flowcharts to plan the solution process, monitoring, peer evaluation, and self-evaluation.

We can thus observe that there are a number of advantages to the PBL approach for improving learning and acquiring important skills for the 21st century. However, there are many challenges that are mainly related to the need for adequate teacher training to implement PBL in basic education. However, despite the fact that physics teacher training in Brazil addresses several methodological strategies that promote active learning, PBL is not taught in undergraduate courses, neither in terms of developing and implementing a teaching plan nor experiencing it as a participant while studying to be a teacher (B. P. Silva et al., 2024).

With this in mind, we implemented a training process for scholarship holders of the Pedagogical Residency Program (PRP) in undergraduate courses in physics, who we will call Residents from now on. The PRP allows Residents to work in Basic Education Schools, in subjects in their area of training, supervised by a preceptor (a teacher at the Basic Education School) and accompanied by a coordinator (a professor from the undergraduate course in Physics at a Higher Education Institution). The PRP is a unique opportunity for pre-service teachers to experience the day-to-day life of a school in a more immersive and purposeful way. This is because they spend much more time in schools and under teacher supervision than in the mandatory supervised internships in their curriculum. Thus, the PRP also serves as a formative process, in which new teaching methodologies can be experienced by these students, who become the subject of research to improve pre-service teacher training.

In this scenario, some questions arose: What are the perceptions of pre-service teachers about the planning, application, and evaluation of a PBL intervention in physics teaching? What could the application of PBL in a Pedagogical Residency Program indicate about the training needed to effectively implement this methodology? Based on these questions, three objectives were outlined for this research: (a) to identify the Residents’ conceptions about learning objectives, methodologies, and learning assessment; (b) examine the Residents’ conceptions about problem situations; and (c) analyze the Residents’ perceptions/learning about the “attitudes” necessary to conduct a PBL program.

The PBL training prepared and supported these Residents in teaching an elective subject alongside their preceptor teacher for a semester in a Basic Education School. During this process, we sought to understand their perceptions about the planning, implementation, and evaluation of PBL.

2. Materials and Methods

Among the public policies for teacher training in Brazil is the Pedagogical Residency Program (PRP) proposed by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, CAPES, in 2018, which aims to promote institutional pedagogical residency projects implemented by Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), contributing to the improvement of pre-service basic education teacher training. Thus, the PRP allows Residents (teacher in training) to work in a Basic Education School (BES) and teach subjects in his/her area of training, supervised by a preceptor teacher at the Basic Education School and accompanied by a coordinator at the HEI.

This immersion allows the Resident to experience the day-to-day life of a school and the administrative and pedagogical demands faced by teachers. Residents receive a scholarship for 18 months and must dedicate approximately 20 h per week to the program. The preceptor teacher also receives a scholarship and supervises up to 5 Residents per semester. The limit of 5 Residents per school is imposed by the general rules of the PRP and aims to ensure the quality of the monitoring and supervision provided by the preceptor teacher. At the HEI, a professor, who also receives a scholarship, coordinates both the activities of the preceptor teacher and the Residents. All participants were involved in the planning, monitoring, and evaluation of the activities developed during the academic semester at the BES.

The Residents were selected through an open selection process announced in a Public Notice for all undergraduate Physics students at the HEI. To enroll, it was necessary to have completed at least 50% of the course, including subjects such as Didactics, Learning Assessment, Supervised Internships, and Physics Teaching Methodologies, and be available to dedicate 20 h per week to the Residency. Interviews and academic transcripts were used to evaluate them in the selection process. The 5 chosen Residents, 3 women and 2 men, are between 20 and 24 years old and live in the school’s neighboring cities. Two of them even attended high school at the same BES where the research was conducted.

After the Residents were selected, a meeting (Google Meet) was held to present and clarify the details of the research, and to inform them that participation was optional and that they could withdraw at any stage. All five Residents agreed to participate in the research, and the online meeting sessions between the HEI coordinator, preceptor teacher, and Residents were conducted via the Google Meet platform, all of which were recorded in video and audio. In addition, the Residents were accompanied in all their activities at the field school by the preceptor teacher, with observation and recording in a field diary serving as elements for constructing the results and analysis.

Table 1. Methodological flow.

Phase	Activity Description	Data Collection Instruments	Research Objectives
Diagnosis and planning	Explore Residents’ conceptions about developing teaching plans.	Questionnaire 1 (Google Form)	(a)
	Definition of the contents to be covered in the elective subject and by each Resident (all involved).	Recorded Meeting (Google Meet)	(a)
	Residents prepare teaching plans for the first 6 meetings of the elective subject.	Teaching Plans (Google Classroom)	(a)
	Residents present their teaching plans for review and adjustments before the start of meetings at the BES (all involved).	Recorded Meeting (Google Meet)	(a)
PBL training course and the first 6 meetings at the BES	The preceptor teacher supervises the Residents in the first 6 meetings at the school.	Observation and Field Diary	(a)
	Presentation of the problem situation and its characteristics to the Residents.	Recorded Meeting (Google Meet)	(b)
	Residents’ reflection on the PS characteristics and the role of the teacher in this methodological approach.	Questionnaire 2 (Google Form)	(b)
	Each Resident developed a PS based on the general context with light as a theme.	Google Classroom	(b)
	Peer review of the prepared PS.	Questionnaire 3 (Google Classroom)	(b)
	Discussion of issues related to planning and conducting the PBL approach with peers and supervised by the preceptor teacher.	Observation and Field Diary	(b)
	Finalized the elaboration of the problem situations and discussed the formative assessment in the PBL approach.	Recorded Meeting (Google Meet)	(b)
Implementation and evaluation of the PBL proposal at the BES	The preceptor teacher supervises the Residents at the 4 PBL meetings at the school.	Observation and Field Diary	(c)
	Reflections and analysis of the intervention after the first 2 meetings, applying the PBL approach.	Questionnaire 4 (Google Classroom)	(c)
	Residents’ perceptions of the tutoring process in a PBL approach.	Questionnaire 5 (Google Classroom)	(c)

presents the methodological flow developed during the research, divided into phases, highlighting the description of the activity and those involved, the data collection instruments, and the proposed objectives. The objectives of the research were (a) to identify the Residents’ conceptions about learning objectives, methodologies, and learning assessment; (b) identify the Residents’ conceptions about problem situations; and (c) analyze the Residents’ perceptions/learning about the “attitudes” necessary to conduct a PBL program. More details are described in the text below.

Before the start of the semester at school, we surveyed the Residents’ initial conceptions about the construction of teaching plans, through Questionnaire 1 (Q1) (Google Form) with the following questions: 1. Have you ever developed a teaching plan? What elements and/or characteristics do you consider essential in a teaching plan? 2. What do you consider important for the development of learning objectives when planning a lesson and/or an intervention? 3. What should influence the choice of a teaching methodology? 4. What should influence the choice of learning assessment strategies/instruments?

In this scenario, the HEI’s professor and the BES’s preceptor teacher proposed an elective subject entitled “Turning on the Lights: From Darkness to Space Travel” to be offered during the semester at the BES. In this way, the Residents would act in this subject as tutors. The school is located in a city in the interior of the state of Pernambuco in Brazil and is a public state school. The elective course involved 12 weekly meetings of 100 min each and aimed to work on concepts related to light, from the historical issues surrounding the phenomenon to issues related to fictitious space travel.

The first 6 meetings at the school were used to study the basic concepts related to the phenomenon of light. The classes taught in these meetings were designed and conducted by the Residents, so the teaching plans they developed and Q1 were instruments for analyzing the Residents’ conceptions about teaching planning. In the sixth meeting, the five Residents worked together, sharing class time and collectively developing teaching materials and a lesson plan. Thus, we collected documentary data and empirical observations over the six weeks, which allowed us to reflect on the research participants’ competencies and skills, as well as their conceptions of learning objectives, teaching methodologies, and learning assessment.

The Residents worked hard to prepare for these first 6 meetings, developing teaching materials and low-cost experiments, which promoted student engagement, a fact reported by them in follow-up meetings held with the preceptor teacher and the coordinator. The following 4 meetings were used to implement a PBL proposal, where the Residents acted as tutors for groups of 5 students each. The final two meetings were used to evaluate the entire course.

Concurrently with the meetings at the BES, the Residents participated in a PBL training course taught by the BES’s preceptor teacher and the HEI’s professor. For these meetings, we used Google Meet, since some of the Residents do not live in the same city, thus avoiding unnecessary travel costs and time. A Google Classroom was also created, from which the questionnaires and texts were made available, and enabled the collection of teaching plans and other materials. The training took place before the Residents began implementing PBL in the BES. Thus, we used the following problem situation for the training of the Residents:

You are a high school teacher and you notice that your students are very interested in science, especially when you offer an elective subject on the topic of “Light”, and the students are very participative and accept various challenges. Motivated by this situation, but at the same time concerned about maintaining and taking advantage of this active disposition of your class, you seek help from the studies you carried out during your undergraduate studies on teaching methodologies in order to develop something that allows your students to be even more protagonists of their learning. Then, you rediscover the possibilities presented by the Problem-Based Learning (PBL) methodology. PBL has the potential to work with real situations, motivate and involve students in an investigative process and enable the development of attitudinal, procedural and conceptual learning. On the other hand, you do not remember having seen or read about the implementation of PBL in high school, especially for teaching topics related to Physics. However, PBL seems to be a good option to address the topic of Light, within the social context of your students, motivating and further developing their interest in science. Therefore, how can you develop a problem situation and apply it in the PBL methodology to address the topic of LIGHT with your high school students, knowing that you have 4 weeks/meetings, with 2 h/class per meeting?

The context of the problem situation was based on Residents’ reports on whether students participated and were interested in classes on the topic studied (light). Ribeiro et al. (2020) point out that contextualizing the theme of the problem situation to the participant’s reality brings them closer to the proposed question. For the authors, this is the first of four characteristics of an effective problem. The second characteristic is that the problem situation should prompt critical reflection on the subject addressed. In our case, critical reflection appears in the excerpt: Motivated by this situation, but at the same time concerned with maintaining and taking advantage of this active disposition of your class, you seek help in the studies carried out during your undergraduate degree on teaching methodologies in order to develop something that allows your students to be even more protagonists of learning. The third characteristic is to motivate the participant to seek solutions, as we put it in the excerpt: Then, you rediscover the possibilities presented by the Problem-Based Learning (PBL) methodology. PBL has the potential to work with real situations, motivate and involve students in an investigative process, and enable the development of attitudinal, procedural, and conceptual learning. Finally, the final section of the problem situation favors the proposition of hypotheses, research, investigations, questions, and discussions, leading to decision-making, which is the fourth and final characteristic that an effective problem must present, according to Ribeiro et al. (2020).

After the meeting where we presented the problem situation (PS) and its characteristics (Ribeiro et al., 2020), the Residents answered Questionnaire 2 (Q2). Q2 was prepared using Google Form and made available on Google Classroom. The Q2 aimed to make them reflect on the characteristics of the problem situation and the role of the teacher when using a methodological approach that uses a PS. The questions that make up Q2 are as follows: 1. Have you ever had contact with Problem Situations during your undergraduate course? If so, what were they like? 2. What are the main characteristics of a Problem Situation based on what we discussed in the last meeting? 3. How do you differentiate the characteristics of a Problem Situation before/after our meeting? 4. What is the role of the Teacher when working with a Problem Situation? 5. How does contextualization influence the Problem Situation? 6. To what extent should the teacher know a possible solution to the proposed Problem Situation?

After answering Q2, the Residents had one week to present their first proposal for a problem situation, remembering that each of them should bring a proposal, since they would be tutoring different groups. Nonetheless, we observed that the Residents had difficulty contextualizing their proposals, even though they demonstrated an understanding of the importance of context for the PS. They constructed questions without context or with a very high level of difficulty. R3, for example, proposed: “Since there are two main theories that seek to explain how light behaves, you propose to study them to identify and expose the poorly explained points of both theories, so that from there you and your team can present your own conclusions, bringing a new model to explain the behavior of light”. We observed that R3 created a problem that is not contextualized with the students’ reality, has no solution, and does not present knowledge to guide the construction of a possible solution, completely contradicting the importance of contextualization in problem situations, the role of the teacher as a mediator, and knowing possible solutions to the problem. The trainers (the preceptor teacher and PRP coordinator) proposed a contextualization focused on “space travel” that united all the Residents, and from this proposal, they were able to construct their problem situations.

So, it was necessary to construct a context to provide a basis for the production of the problem situations. Given the theme of the elective subject, the context was as follows:

You are a crew member of the largest starship of the United Federation of Earth, and you are one of those responsible for searching for other planets that can sustain life, and consequently populate them. Arriving at one of the new possible planets that are candidates for colonization, you realize that some events work differently from how they did on Earth, including phenomena in the atmosphere, fauna and flora, and even in the crew members themselves. Knowing that you need to survive in this place, you need to learn how things work here. The star is a red supergiant star, which has a luminous intensity that is very different from the Sun (the star in Earth’s solar system), much greater in fact, in the same way that it may not produce much light with a certain wavelength, thus leaving some colors very rare to see. The atmosphere has elements that make it work as a polarizing filter, filtering the light that is emitted by the star. Therefore, not all of the light from this star reaches the surface of the planet. With this fact in mind, we already know that several things can happen in very different ways.

Note that the contextualization is not close to the students’ daily lives; however, it is related to the theme of the elective discipline “from darkness to space travel”, so a fictional scenario was more appropriate to provoke student engagement, as pointed out by Akben (2019) and B. P. Silva et al. (2024). Based on this contextualization, each Resident constructed a problem aiming to integrate knowledge in an interdisciplinary way with the theme of light as the central axis. With themes focused on the growth of flora (R1), the color of the sky (R2), human vision (R3), the production of vitamin D (R4), and bird locomotion (R5). Below, the problem situations developed by the Residents, based on the general context proposed, are presented:

R1

Seeing the need to grow one’s own food, it is noted that when plants sprout, they present certain characteristics that are very different from those on Earth. Knowing that light is of great importance for the development of plants, how do you explain the characteristics they presented, and how could food cultivation work on this new planet?

R2

To your surprise, the sky is red. Knowing that one of the factors responsible for the sky’s color is its star. How would you explain this effect? What properties end up generating this phenomenon?

R3

Upon arriving on the new planet, humans notice that they are having a different perception of colors, so that they cannot see certain colors, as if there was something blocking the passage of certain colors to their eyes. Knowing this, they assemble a team to analyze the planet’s atmosphere and light and seek to understand this phenomenon. What possible causes do you think contribute to this happening?

R4

After weeks on the new planet, most of the crew members presented symptoms such as joint pain, fatigue and muscle weakness. After tests, it was confirmed that it was a vitamin D deficiency. Considering that the crew members’ diet is extremely strict, that is, factors related to diet are ruled out, what factors and characteristics of this new planet could directly interfere with the deficiency of this vitamin? Investigate, discuss and raise hypotheses as to how this could occur.

R5

With the animals that were transported on the ship along with the crew, upon arriving on this new planet, in a new environment, it is clear that some of them, especially the birds, feel much more lost and have some difficulty moving around and feeling space. All of this is related to their vision. Considering that some animals, especially birds, see differently than humans, in relation to lights, what could be the possible cause for them to have this vision deficit? And what would be a solution to this problem?

Then, the problem situation was presented and discussed under the supervision of the preceptor teacher and analyzed by peers, using Questionnaire 3 (Q3) as a guide for this analysis. Q3 had the following questions: 1. What questions can you ask about the PS? 2. What concepts of optics or light can be related to this PS? 3. What knowledge related to other sciences can help answer/understand this PS? 4. In a brief search on the Internet, what did you find that could help answer this PS? After providing individual answers to these questions, we shared and discussed them to simulate possible questions from the students. The Q3 questionnaire was administered to Residents after a meeting held at the school, where each Resident had the opportunity to present the problem situation they had developed to their colleagues. This presentation was coordinated by the supervising teacher, who chose how the peer evaluation of the problem situation would take place, that is, which Resident would analyze the problem situation developed by their colleague. Thus, R1 analyzed the SP developed by R5, R2 analyzed the SP developed by R4, R3 analyzed the SP of R1, R4 analyzed the SP of R3, and R5 analyzed the SP of R2.

Issues related to planning and conducting the PBL approach were also discussed at this meeting. The following week, we finalized the elaboration of the problem situations and discussed the formative assessment in the PBL approach. In addition to the formative meetings, readings were also made available to the Residents, such as Ribeiro et al. (2020) and Camargo (2019). The following meetings were for monitoring the implementation of PBL at the school. After 2 weeks of the 4 meetings of applying PBL at the school, the Residents answered Questionnaire 4 (Q4) so that they could present their reflections and analyze the intervention at this point. Q4 has the following questions: 1. Comment on the students’ expectations and reactions when the Problem Situation was presented to them; 2. Comment on the difficulties encountered in conducting the PS without “giving away the gold”, that is, helping them think about it, but without providing answers; 3. What knowledge/concepts of Physics were listed by the students as possible “responsible” for the problem presented in the PS? 4. How do you think it is possible to evaluate students’ learning in the process of solving the PS? 5. After applying PS in these first two weeks, would you make any changes to your PS? Which ones?

A final questionnaire (Q5) was given to the Residents in order to understand how they perceived the tutoring process. To guide the Residents’ reflections, we asked: 1. What were the impressions left by the students when working in groups? Were you able to observe behaviors that revealed attitudinal knowledge? Comment. 2. PBL fosters scientific thinking, however, was there a change in the way students thought/dialogued/shared knowledge when they tried to build a solution to the problem situation? Comment in great detail. 3. List the main difficulties encountered when working with problem situations. 4. What possible improvements could be made to make the problem situation more effective? 5. When participating as a tutor, it is possible to perceive the heterogeneity of the group. How were divergent opinions developed?

As can be seen, all data collection instruments are qualitative. The questionnaire responses were very detailed, indicating that the Residents reflected on each question. Additionally, we used the preceptor’s field diary, the Residents’ teaching plans, and Google Meet recordings. Thus, the analysis was based on reading the responses and identifying common themes that allowed us to understand how these Residents understand teaching planning, especially the relationships they are able to develop between learning objectives, methodologies, and formative assessment. To analyze the problem situation, we observed whether the Residents were able to achieve the four characteristics proposed by Ribeiro et al. (2020), the processes of elaboration of the PS (Q2), and how they analyze the problem situation created by their colleagues (Q3). The analysis of the implementation process, which involved the application of questionnaires Q4 and Q5, also involved the elaboration of themes that could help us understand how the Residents felt about conducting PBL and how they perceived changes or reactions from the students who participated in the application of PBL.

This research is part of the research developed by one of the authors and was submitted for analysis by the Research Ethics Committee through the Plataforma Brasil for the National Health Council, having been approved under number CAAE 80019824.0.0000.5208.

3. Results

To achieve our first research objective, that is, to identify Residents’ conceptions about learning objectives, methodologies, and learning assessment, the responses to Q1 and the plans prepared for the first six meetings in the elective discipline were used. Next, we will discuss the processes of elaboration and analysis of problem situations (PSs) carried out by the Residents, in order to respond to our second research objective: to identify the Residents’ conceptions about problem situations. For this purpose, we will use the responses to Q2, observations, and the preceptor’s field diary of the discussion and analysis among peers of the PS (Q3). The analysis of the implementation of PBL has two directions: one focused on how the Residents felt conducting the PBL approach (Q4) and how they observed changes or reactions of the students depending on the type of approach (Q5). The observations and field diary of the preceptor teacher, who accompanied the four PBL implementation meetings by the Residents, are also used to complement this analysis and respond to our third research objective: to analyze the Residents’ perceptions/learning about the “attitudes” necessary to conduct a PBL program.

3.1. Conceptions on Teaching Planning

For the purpose of presenting the results, the Residents were named R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5, with R3 and R5 being men and the other Residents being women. In order to survey the Residents’ initial conceptions about the construction of teaching plans, we used the Q1 questionnaire, the answers to which are presented in

Table 2. Residents’ responses to Q1.

Questions	Resident	Response
1. Have you ever developed a teaching plan? What elements and/or characteristics do you consider essential in a teaching plan?	R1	Yes, teaching methodologies, activities, class structure, time management, well-defined objectives, etc.
	R2	During my two internships, I was able to develop some lesson plans, some of which I put into practice in my teaching. Initially, the most important point is planning, organizing schedules, the methodology that will be applied, how the subject will be approached, what the main theme will be, how you will conduct the class and assessment methods.
	R3	Yes, in the Didactics discipline I prepared a lesson plan, I believe it is essential, a good way to evaluate the students’ learning process, because in my opinion, just an evaluation does not guarantee that they are learning, good planning and organization are necessary.
	R4	I have never prepared one, however, in the Didactics discipline I had the experience of analyzing a lesson plan. I believe that it is the necessary tool to provide an overview of the teaching-learning process to both the teacher and the students. Thus, based on the learning objectives proposed by the teacher, it will be possible to outline in the lesson plan the methodological processes and resources that will be the basis for achieving these objectives. In addition, I believe it is essential to explain how the evaluation processes will be carried out.
	R5	No, I never developed any teaching plan.
2. What do you consider important for the development of learning objectives when planning a lesson and/or an intervention?	R1	Where you want to go, how to get there, why you want to get there and the importance of this goal
	R2	Observation, research, collection of testimonies from the school structure and satisfaction analysis. In other words, everything that will show the successes and mistakes that have already occurred in the institution, so that a more accurate and safer path can be planned.
	R3	I believe that what is most important is to have the objective of learning where the student is not limited to behaviorist teaching models, where the focus of "learning" is to get a good grade or pass the entrance exam. I think it is necessary that the main objective is the development of reasoning, questioning and curiosity, where knowledge is the true reward of teaching, and passing the test is a consequence.
	R4	I believe that as a basis, the teacher should take into account what is proposed by the curriculum, such as the guidelines of the BNCC and the school program content. In addition, the teacher should have prior knowledge and take into account the difficulties and skills that the students have, which may vary between classes in the same year. This way, the teacher will be democratic and fair when creating a plan that suits each class. For example, in classes with a predominance of extroverted students, the teacher can consider whether group work will be the best option to promote learning or not.
	R5	Well, I think the main thing is that students achieve the objectives. Therefore, I believe that when developing learning objectives when planning a lesson and/or intervention, it is important to keep in mind the possible difficulties and the best ways to approach your methodology in order to achieve the intended objectives.
3. What should influence the choice of a teaching methodology?	R1	In my opinion, the development and acceptance of the class.
	R2	The level of the students in the classroom, how they behave depending on the methodology applied, and how I can achieve better concentration from the majority of the class.
	R3	The specificities of each class, and also of each student.
	R4	The content to be covered and the characteristics of the individuals in each class directly influence the chosen methodology. In physics teaching, some content is more amenable to conducting experiments, for example. Thus, the teacher may opt for this form of teaching-learning process, which does not prevent other methodologies from being combined. The teacher may also ask students for suggestions on which methodologies they feel most comfortable with or would like to use. By mutual agreement, the teacher and the students may choose the best methodologies for given content and situations. From this perspective, the teacher may consider these factors, in addition to indirect factors such as workload, management demands, the school’s physical structure, and available resources.
	R5	Different study methodologies work in different ways to achieve the desired goal. Therefore, it is important to check whether the chosen methodology is the most effective for the intended purpose. It is important to observe whether this methodology can make the student memorize, question, and finally learn the content.
4. What should influence the choice of learning assessment strategies/instruments?	R1	Development and acceptance of the class.
	R2	Know the possibilities, application and limitations of the instruments and students. Knowing your class and how it deals with different dynamics is essential, analyzing which points you get the best results and following that path.
	R3	Once again, the specificities of each class or student. It is necessary to analyze the difficulties encountered by each class, or individually by each student, and we can adapt to the pace and difficulties of each one.
	R4	Firstly, the teacher’s view of what assessment is will directly influence this process. When the teacher understands that assessment is linked to an investigation process that goes from the classroom, considering individual and social factors, to moments after exams, including feedback and guidance, for example, the assessment process will have a broader and fairer meaning. Therefore, whatever assessment instruments the teacher chooses, it is important that they are based on meaningful learning.
	R5	Speaking of learning assessment, I believe in three forms of assessment: The first would be a more classic assessment, checking whether the student has learned specific elements, perhaps as a written assessment; The second would be something more long-term, checking how much the student has improved over time in learning a certain content; And finally, the third would be to let the student self-evaluate, being honest with themselves about what they managed and/or failed to learn.

.

Table 3. Relationships between Learning Objectives, Methodologies, and Assessment expressed on the teaching plans.

Resident	Objectives	Methodologies	Assessment
R1	List and discuss the importance of Light, how we see it and what sensations it can provide to human beings.	Individual activity on how the eye works based on drawings and explanatory writing individually, lecture, peer review	We will have a Formative Assessment, which will be constructed based on the efforts and performance/participation of students regarding the content worked on and proposed exercises
R2	know and understand the behavior of light introduce the concept of the polarizer and how it works	Dialogued lecture Demonstrations of the use of the polarizer Presentation of the summary of what was discussed during the lecture	The assessment will be done through questions
R3	Understand and discuss the origin of light; Understand the wave and particle theories of light and their main differences Introduce the different explanatory aspects of light and related phenomena Apply prior knowledge to the interpretation of everyday situations involving light and its different properties	Identify students’ prior knowledge through questions. Dialogued lecture	The assessment will be done through questions
R4	Continue with reflections on Newton’s corpuscular theory and Huygens’ wave theory Understand the differences between the two theories Learn about the phenomenon of wave interference Analyze experiments with slits and reflect on their results Understand the types, classifications, propagation media and characteristics of waves in general Theoretically understand light behaving like a wave	Review and present new topics Demonstrate and contextualize with everyday examples Ask questions with the aim of creating in students the feeling of needing to solve a problem	Contextualize the content with everyday situations Questions and challenges during the explanation Conversation about the questions
R5	Introduce students to the concepts of colors related to visible light	Dialogued lecture	Research relating the finding to what was given in class and explaining where this relationship comes from and how they thought about that specifically

presents the relationships between learning objectives, methodologies, and assessment that Residents expressed on the teaching plans prepared for the first five meetings in the elective course. These were taught individually by each Resident: the first class was taught by R1, the second by R5, the third by R3, the fourth by R4, the fifth by R2, and they worked together in the sixth class. The observations and field diary of the preceptor teacher helped analyze how Residents can (or not) put into practice the teaching plans they developed.

Through the answers to Q1 (Table 2), it is clear that R5 had never prepared or analyzed a teaching plan before, explaining why his teaching plan was the poorest in terms of learning objectives and teaching methodology; however, it is observed that the evaluation proposal is closer to a formative assessment, as we can see by Table 3. However, this did not prevent him from making an important point about learning objectives at Q1, that they should be designed in such a way that they are achievable by students and that the methodology used should enable this achievement:

I believe that when developing learning objectives when planning a lesson and/or intervention, it is important to keep in mind the possible difficulties and the best ways to approach your methodology in order to achieve the intended objectives.

(R5)

Observation of R5’s performance revealed commitment to executing the plan, which presented appropriate content for the proposal, despite having difficulty recapitulating knowledge covered in the previous class as a starting point. Furthermore, R5 failed to manage time appropriately, and his assessment proposal was not implemented in the class. Therefore, without the assessment, it is difficult to determine whether his concern with the relationship between objectives and methodology was realized.

Only R1 expressed concern about managing time appropriately during the class, explaining this as an essential element to be considered in the teaching plan (Q1—Table 2). In the individualized class, the preceptor observed that R1 managed time (setting aside sufficient periods for students to take notes, express questions, discuss, and solve problems) and managed students more effectively. This performance can be attributed to the fact that R1 has more classroom experience than the other Residents, an aspect raised by the preceptor during the Residents’ monitoring. R1 presented the development and acceptance of the class as the only element in defining the methodology and assessment strategies (Q1—Table 2). However, R1 taught the first class and did not have time to get to know the class. This indicates that the methodology and assessment were likely linked to her previous experience and the content to be taught.

We observed that only R2 has a different view on learning objectives, as expressed in Table 2:

Observation, research, collection of testimonies from the school structure and satisfaction analysis. In other words, everything that will show the successes and mistakes that have already occurred in the institution, so that a more accurate and safer path can be planned.

(R2)

R2 also expresses a concern with class knowledge and behavior as elements for defining methodology and assessment (Q1—Table 2). However, unlike R1, she teaches the last class and has time to get to know the class better. The teaching plan (Table 3) presented appropriate content, objectives, and methodology. However, it did not clearly explain how the assessment would occur, simply stating: The assessment will be done through questions. (R2). Observation of R2’s teaching plan implementation, conducted by the preceptor teacher, reveals that, like R5, R2 had difficulty recapitulating the knowledge covered in previous classes as a starting point. Furthermore, R2 failed to adequately consider the assessment process, asking students questions during the class without observing any form of recording or feedback.

R3, like R1 and R2, also reports that the class profile influences the learning assessment instrument or model (Q1—Table 2). Although the teaching plan (Table 3), proposed by R3, highlights a concern with identifying students’ prior knowledge, like R2 and R5, R3 had difficulty revisiting knowledge covered in previous classes (preceptor’s observation). The preceptor also points out that R3 had significant difficulty creating a dialogic environment as proposed in his plan and only implemented a written assessment with 10 questions on the topic. Thus, there is a disconnect between practice and what R3 presents as important for developing learning objectives (Q1—Table 2):

I believe that what is most important is to have a learning objective where the student is not limited to behaviorist teaching models, where the focus of “learning” is on getting a good grade or passing the entrance exam. I think it is necessary that the main objective is the development of reasoning, questioning and curiosity, where knowledge is the true reward of teaching, and passing the test is a consequence.

(R3)

The teaching plan proposed by R4 was the most comprehensive. His learning objectives already highlight the importance of reviewing previously covered content: Continue with reflections on Newton’s corpuscular theory and Huygens’ wave theory (R4). It is worth noting that his class takes place a week after R3’s, which introduces this content. In total, R4 presents six objectives that are aligned with the methodological and assessment proposals. His proposals are aligned with his reflections when answering Q1 (Table 2), particularly regarding learning assessment:

Firstly, the teacher’s view of what assessment is will directly influence this process. When the teacher understands that assessment is linked to an investigation process that extends from the classroom, considering individual and social factors, to moments after exams, including feedback and guidance, for example, the assessment process will have a broader and fairer meaning.

(R4)

The preceptor points out that R4 was able to consolidate his entire teaching proposal during the class.

After classes, in a meeting with the Residents, when asked about the implementation of their teaching plans, they revealed difficulty in conducting a dialogue presentation and were unanimous in their fear of teaching Physics content to high school students.

3.2. Preparation and Analysis of Problem Situations

In order to understand how Residents reflected on what a problem situation (PS) is, and achieve our second research objective (to identify the Residents’ conceptions about problem situation), after the meeting in which we presented and discussed the characteristics of a problem situation, we applied Q2. The Residents’ responses to Q2, as shown in

Table 4. Residents’ responses to Q2.

Questions	Resident	Response
1. Have you ever had contact with Problem Situations during your undergraduate course? If so, what were they like?	R1	Yes, I don’t remember specifically which ones, but they all involved mechanics!
	R2	I haven’t had any direct contact, but I’ve studied a little about problem situations and it was enriching.
	R3	An experience in a Physics Teaching Methodology 2 subject where we had to start from a problem situation to develop a contextualization for a class
	R4	No
	R5	No, I believe I have never had contact with problem situations, although I have heard about them during my undergraduate studies.
2. What are the main characteristics of a Problem Situation based on what we discussed in the last meeting?	R1	The main characteristics are: theoretical support (which we have already started), contextualization of the problem, reflection and motivation for research. That the SP has an answer, if possible, it is interconnected with the student’s daily life, etc.
	R2	change/cause, combination, comparison and equality.
	R3	Contextualize in relation to the student’s reality, develop critical reflection and motivate them to seek solutions to the situation presented.
	R4	These are situations that lead students to reflect on a solution that is not immediate or automatic; such problems go beyond formulas. Thus, the student will have active learning, where the solution or possible solutions will be constructed throughout a previously structured process.
	R5	According to what was discussed and presented at our meeting, I believe that the main characteristics are: working with real situations, motivating and involving students in an investigative process and enabling the development of attitudinal, procedural and conceptual learning.
3. How do you differentiate the characteristics of a Problem Situation before/after our meeting?	R1	Well, as I already had some contact with this methodology, I already knew some things, but I thought a lot about the importance of involving the student’s reality in a different way.
	R2	Before the meeting I had an idea about the characteristics of a problem situation very similar to what was discussed in the meeting, however, I had never imagined what it would be like in practice, as we did during the meeting.
	R3	In contextualization, seeking to bring the student’s reality closer to our problem situation, then in reflection we will reflect on the problem, its characteristics and possible solutions, and from there begin to work to find possible solutions.
	R4	The situations must be motivating for students, in the sense that they can actually become interested in the possible solution. They must also be designed in such a way as to encourage the student to take an active and leading role in the face of the problem.
	R5	Before, I believed that problem situations were just about solving problems/questions in class. Today I see that it would be about working in a different way, making students learn from different perspectives, conceptually, practically, cognitively, and in terms of attitudes.
4. What is the role of the Teacher when working with a Problem Situation?	R1	The main role of the teacher, in resolving a problem situation, is to mediate in a light way, readings, conversations, provoking questions in a way that leads students to reflect, seeking to understand how students would solve this problem!
	R2	He must be a mediator, facilitator and articulator of knowledge and not just the one who holds the information.
	R3	I believe that when developing a problem situation, the teacher places his student as an active part of the teaching-learning process, therefore, he must mediate discussions and encourage students’ curiosity and critical thinking.
	R4	Provide an alternative to technical education that does little to encourage students to think about their practices, thus generating new, meaningful ways to construct learning.
	R5	I believe that the teacher should act as a mediator, helping students so that they can work and resolve the problem situation.
5. How does contextualization influence the Problem Situation?	R1	The contextualization of the problem situation brings students closer to their reality, motivating them to find ways to resolve a situation that is often considered obvious to them, breaks down deviations in thinking that may be generated and deviate from the resolution of the proposed issue, and associate’s knowledge.
	R2	So that students feel like producers of knowledge, put them in this situation, allowing them to internalize it through their experiences, establishing conditions for problematization.
	R3	We must contextualize thinking about including the students’ reality, so that it comes closer to something they experience or have experienced, as this makes it more stimulating.
	R4	Contextualization is directly linked to the student’s motivation, because for them to be able to actually commit to a resolution or reflection, it is important that there is prior interest.
	R5	Contextualization helps to better understand the circumstances of the problem situation, understand the proposed cause of the problem, and can help in the search for a resolution to this problem.
6. To what extent should the teacher know a possible solution to the proposed Problem Situation?	R1	When creating an effective problem situation, the teacher must reflect and have in his hands the answers that lead to the final result, and the final result.
	R2	The teacher must welcome differences and consider them in the teaching-learning process, recognizing that each student learns in a different way, has their own context and needs to be recognized as an individual.
	R3	The teacher must know the problem situation and possible solutions very well, because if the students are unable to develop, the teacher must guide them, showing them the path to follow.
	R4	The teacher must know the entire context, so that he or she can clarify any doubts that may arise during the students’ reflection process. However, the teacher does not need to know the answer, or even if it is possible to arrive at it.
	R5	Well, considering that the teacher must act as a mediator and helper for the students during the resolution of a problem situation, he does not need to know everything about a possible solution, but I believe it is important that he knows the path to a possible solution, and that with that, he can direct the students to follow that path and solve that problem situation.

, indicated that R4 and R5 had no previous contact with PSs, R1 and R2 had already heard of PSs, and R3 had experienced an activity that involved PSs in a subject in their undergraduate course.

In general, the Residents externalized (in Q2) some of the most important characteristics for a problem situation, approaching what was stated by Ribeiro et al. (2020):

These are situations that lead students to reflect on a solution that is not immediate or automatic; such problems go beyond formulas. Thus, the student will have active learning, where the solution or possible solutions will be constructed throughout a previously structured process.

(R4)

According to what was discussed and presented at our meeting, I believe that the main characteristics are: working with real situations, motivating and involving students in an investigative process and enabling the development of attitudinal, procedural and conceptual learning.

(R5)

Furthermore, we realized that the meeting where we presented the PS and its main characteristics helped the Residents to distance the PS used in methodologies, such as PBL, from the issues commonly used in science teaching, such as exams, examples solved on the board during classes, and even in experimental activities:

Before the meeting I had an idea about the characteristics of a problem situation very similar to what was discussed in the meeting, however, I had never imagined what it would be like in practice, as we did during the meeting.

(R2)

Before, I believed that problem situations were just about solving problems/questions in class. Today I see that it would be about working in a different way, making students learn from different perspectives, conceptually, practically, cognitively, and in terms of attitudes.

(R5)

The Residents also reported the main characteristics that the teacher or tutor should present when conducting the resolution of a problem situation, from the perspective of being the mediator of knowledge and placing the student as the protagonist, helping them develop important skills such as creativity and critical thinking.

When talking about how contextualization influences PSs, we observed that Residents 1, 3, and 4 attribute importance to its connection with student motivation. For them, it is essential to bring aspects of students’ lives so that we can attract them and keep them interested in finding a solution to the PS:

We must contextualize thinking about including the students’ reality, so that it comes closer to something they experience or have experienced, as this makes it more stimulating.

(R3)

Contextualization is directly linked to the student’s motivation, because for them to be able to actually commit to a resolution or reflection, it is important that there is prior interest.

(R4)

R2 related the contextualization of the problem situation to the feeling of producing knowledge, which involves aspects of conducting PBL. For R5, this contextualization has a fundamental connection with the construction of a PS, so that it helps to understand the problem that one seeks to solve.

When asked about the need for the teacher to have knowledge of a possible solution for the proposed activity, R2 described some of the important characteristics for a teacher as a mediator, but did not talk about whether or not he knows the answer to the SP. On the other hand, R1 was emphatic in saying that the teacher must know the answer, which contradicts the main aspect of the PBL approach: the focus is not on the final result, but in on the process; that is, the learning that occurs on the way to solving the SP is more important than arriving at a final answer. The others considered that, to some extent, knowing the possible paths to a solution would be important to implement the PBL approach.

In general, the Residents had a good understanding of the problem situation and the role of the teacher in conducting a PBL approach. However, when we asked them to design a problem situation to implement in the elective course, we observed that they were unable to develop it, and we needed to create a general context for everyone (presented in item 2). Based on this general context, each Resident created a problematization that integrated knowledge of the physics of light with other areas, which were presented in Section 2. These PSs were discussed with the HEI’s coordinator and preceptor teacher in online meetings. Furthermore, as described in Section 2, there was a meeting at the BES for peer analysis and discussion of all Residents’ problem situations, monitored by the preceptor teacher. This meeting also discussed the expected attitudes in conducting PBL. Thus, all Residents came to class with clear indications of possible solutions and questions that could be asked by students. So, in theory, they were ready to apply PBL.

3.3. Reflections on Intervention: Tutors and PBL

The Q4 questionnaire, presented in

Table 5. Residents’ responses to Q4.

Questions	Resident	Response
1. Comment on the students’ expectations and reactions when the Problem Situation was presented to them.	R1	At first, the students were extremely excited about solving the situation and this new problem.
	R2	When contextualizing the students about the problem situation, they presented behavior that I expected, many questions, a lot of imagination, and more than meeting my expectations, I had many positive surprises with the paths that the students were following since their first contact with PS.
	R3	At first, they were scared, but as the activity progressed and their doubts were clarified, the activity began to arouse curiosity and interest in the students.
	R4	The students were curious and motivated to solve the problem, since contextualization (involving space travel) is not usually addressed in the classroom, especially from a PBL approach.
	R5	I felt that both the expectations and the students’ reactions were quite mixed. We did not "prepare" the students for the challenge that PBL would be. On the one hand, I felt that when PBL was announced, some of the students seemed to have a lot of doubts about what it meant, while others ended up not caring so much. On the other hand, when the Problem Situation was presented, everyone showed a lot of interest, they seemed quite enthusiastic about solving that problem, about "overcoming that challenge", so to speak.
2. Comment on the difficulties encountered in conducting the PS without “giving away the gold”, that is, helping them think about it, but without providing answers.	R1	The biggest difficulty was mediating the students so that they could think again in the “correct” way, since they had many ideas and initially were unable to organize them.
	R2	I confess that it was difficult not to answer the questions asked by the students, because I am used to always answering the doubts of those who ask me questions, directing them indirectly was very difficult. One of the most difficult things was seeing that many of the paths they were following were not in line with what we wanted to find, and it was particularly challenging for me to find a way to show alternative paths.
	R3	Personally, I think one of the most complicated parts is guiding the conversation and research without giving the answers or making the answers very obvious. We have to be constantly policing ourselves so as not to respond without realizing it.
	R4	The students, or at least some of them, showed interest in finding solutions, including the hypotheses generated, although sometimes they deviated from what was proposed, they were creative and had a good scientific basis. However, the large number of students thinking of different hypotheses ended up creating an environment in which it was necessary to intervene. In this case, it was difficult to mediate and at the same time not provide answers.
	R5	Initially, it was very difficult to give students directions without giving too many answers and ruining the idea of PBL. However, as time went by, as they shared their ideas and asked questions, I found that they progressed very well without having to rely on my help so much. But initially, it was very complex. I thought a lot and went over several words in my head, fearing that I would end up giving more information than I should have.
3. What knowledge/concepts of Physics were listed by the students as possible “responsible” for the problem presented in the PS?	R1	Excess light, Polarizer.
	R2	Some students were questioning the frequency and length of light, others were questioning what the planet’s orbit, distance, polarization, among others.
	R3	The first ideas were related to the star, temperature and whether the light in the house would be different. After some discussions, concepts such as atmosphere, visible spectrum, reflection and refraction, ozone layer and ultraviolet rays began to appear.
	R4	Students always commented on wavelength and frequency, as well as mentioning light intensity.
	R5	The students had a basic idea of what could be responsible for the problem. They put the excess light emitted by the Red Supergiant Star as the cause of the problem faced by the birds. Since birds see in a very different way from humans, they can see not only the colors of common visible light that humans also see, but they can also see certain colors of the light spectrum that would be invisible to us humans.
4. How do you think it is possible to evaluate students’ learning in the process of solving the PS?	R1	Through debates, preparation of questionnaires, etc.
	R2	--
	R3	I believe that the assessment should be procedural, by observing the discussions, ideas and conclusions presented by the students, in order to observe whether our initial objectives were achieved. For example, in my problem situation I have some objectives such as: discussing concepts of atmosphere, refraction and reflection of light, visible spectrum, and polarizing lenses. If they are able to have a good understanding of these concepts, applying them in problem situations and understanding where these concepts are present in their daily lives, the objective has been achieved because I believe that they have learned something.
	R4	Assessment, by its nature, is an ongoing process, and in relation to PBL, which is also a construction process, I think it is necessary to assess what was developed throughout the classes, listing possible paths and steps that were followed. From this perspective, I believe that an objective assessment instrument, such as a report or a form, would be viable and consistent with the proposal.
	R5	Well, I believe it is important to see how everyone in the group participated and how they contributed. It would be interesting to see if there was any disagreement in the group about some of the ideas they had and how this was resolved. It would also be essential to see which concepts from physics and science they used to find the main reason for the problem and also how they found to solve this problem. I think that by observing all these points, we can indeed arrive at a great way of evaluating.
5. After applying PS in these first two weeks, would you make any changes to your PS? Which ones?	R1	Yes, it would involve some more information about the planet and talk more about the physics behind some materials.
	R2	I would actually do it, since it is my first contact, I believe it is going very well, but looking back, with the recent knowledge I have learned with this methodology, I believe that the PS presentation structure would be something that could be improved a lot. There would be no way I could reach this conclusion without first going through the application of what we created. I understand that experience leads to improvement, and in my opinion, we could have done something better in the PS presentation.
	R3	Yes. I wouldn’t include images of the planet and the red atmosphere because they were very focused on the red issue, because they understood that the crew members saw everything red, and didn’t see the other colors. It took a while for them to understand that the images were just to provide a little immersion so that they could imagine the scenario they were being presented with.
	R4	Not in the problem situation, but in the contextualization. I believe that making the idea of polarizers explicit, as was done, only got in the way of facilitating the problem situation. Since it is an extremely important concept in some situations.
	R5	Yes. I underestimated the students too much. If I could, I would remove some of the information present in the PS, because I believe it may have helped them reach certain answers very quickly. Not that they didn’t have a lot of difficulty, because they did, and quite a lot, but I believe they could have thought a little more about certain aspects before arriving at what was considered the main thing for the PS. Or, I could do the opposite, and add even more information, so that the students would be more careful when filtering what they think would be the essential thing for that PS. I would also establish certain rules about how they should act, such as, for example, each member of the group establishing a theory about the problem, or else, making certain roles of each member clearer, so that some of the students, at certain moments, could have greater participation, instead of waiting for a "leader" to guide them.

, was answered by the Residents during the implementation of the PBL proposal, which lasted 4 weeks. The main idea was to help the Residents reflect on this initial moment of the intervention and, up until that moment, the main challenges they faced. The responses to Q4 and the preceptor’s observations help achieve our third research objective: to analyze the Residents’ perceptions/learning about the “attitudes” necessary to conduct a PBL program.

The presentation of the PBL proposal left the elective students concerned: that when PBL was announced, some of the students seemed to have a lot of doubts about what it meant (R5). But when the problem situation was presented, they became motivated:

At first, the students were extremely excited about solving the situation and this new problem.

(R1)

The students were curious and motivated to solve the problem, since contextualization (involving space travel) is not usually addressed in the classroom, especially from a PBL approach.

(R4)

… when the Problem Situation was presented, everyone showed a lot of interest …

(R5)

All Residents described difficulties in mediating the PBL process in order to promote the construction of knowledge by students:

The biggest difficulty was mediating the students so that they could think again in the “correct” way …

(R1)

I confess that it was difficult not to answer the questions asked by the students, … One of the most difficult things was seeing that many of the paths they were following were not in line with what we wanted to find, and it was particularly challenging for me to find a way to show alternative paths.

(R2)

Personally, I think one of the most complicated parts is guiding the conversation and research without giving the answers or making the answers very obvious.

(R3)

it was difficult to mediate and at the same time not provide answers

(R4)

Initially, it was very difficult to give students directions without giving too many answers and ruining the idea of PBL.

(R5)

These reflections align with the preceptor’s observation. For him, both students and Residents struggled with time. Students understood the PS as a question with a single correct answer and that the Residents and the teacher were there to point out when they were wrong. Residents demonstrated an understanding of their role as tutors and a concern for observing it. However, the argumentative process of producing meaning and seeking solutions conflicted with what the Residents indicated as their traditional teaching style in basic physics courses. In other words, the Residents had difficulty teaching because, for them, even when there were problems to be solved, there was an expected solution, and the argument was built around it. Thus, although they developed a solution path and discussed it before contacting the students, guiding the students’ argumentative propositions, indicating how they should search for/elaborate on their doubts (research on the internet, in books, or with experts), or suggesting physics concepts that reinforced or discredited ideas, were challenging for the Residents.

The Residents were also able to express their thoughts on the best way to assess student learning. In general, they felt it was important to observe each student’s participation and contribution to solving the problem:

I think it is necessary to assess what was developed throughout the classes, listing possible paths and steps that were followed.

(R4)

Well, I believe it is important to see how everyone in the group participated and how they contributed. It would be interesting to see if there was any disagreement in the group about some of the ideas they had and how this was resolved. It would also be essential to see which concepts from physics and science they used to find the main reason for the problem and also how they found to solve this problem.

(R5)

They also expressed concern about whether the learning objectives were met:

I believe that the assessment should be procedural, by observing the discussions, ideas and conclusions presented by the students, in order to observe whether our initial objectives were achieved. For example, in my problem situation I have some objectives such as: discussing concepts of atmosphere, refraction and reflection of light, visible spectrum, and polarizing lenses. If they are able to have a good understanding of these concepts, applying them in problem situations and understanding where these concepts are present in their daily lives, the objective has been achieved because I believe that they have learned something.

(R3)

In the follow-up meetings with the preceptor professor, the HEI’s coordinator, and all the Residents, it was decided that each group of students would prepare a report to send to Terra, accepting the proposal made by R4: I believe that an objective assessment instrument, such as a report or a form, would be viable and consistent with the proposal.

When asked if they would make any changes to the problem situation after its implementation, all the Residents said yes. The reflections they made are relevant and demonstrate how experiencing PBL is important to better understand this approach, as R2 pointed out:

I would actually do it, since it is my first contact, I believe it is going very well, but looking back, with the recent knowledge I have learned with this methodology, I believe that the PS presentation structure would be something that could be improved a lot. There would be no way I could reach this conclusion without first going through the application of what we created. I understand that experience leads to improvement, and in my opinion, we could have done something better in the PS presentation

For R1, R3, and R4, adding or reducing information would be more interesting:

Yes, it would involve some more information about the planet

(R1)

Yes. I wouldn’t include images of the planet and the red atmosphere because they were very focused on the red issue

(R3)

Not in the problem situation, but in the contextualization. I believe that making the idea of polarizers explicit, as was done, only got in the way of facilitating the problem situation.

(R4)

On the other hand, R5 made three important reflections. The first is that he underestimated the students. The second was realizing that PBL can make the learning process more complex, not only by removing relevant information but also by adding information that is not necessarily relevant:

If I could, I would remove some of the information present in the PS, because I believe it may have helped them reach certain answers very quickly … Or, I could do the opposite, and add even more information, so that the students would be more careful when filtering what they think would be the essential thing for that PS.

The third concerns how PBL could have been implemented to ensure everyone participated:

I would also establish certain rules about how they should act, such as, for example, each member of the group establishing a theory about the problem, or else, making certain roles of each member clearer, so that some of the students, at certain moments, could have greater participation, instead of waiting for a “leader” to guide them.

3.4. Reflections on the Intervention: Students and PBL

To analyze the Residents’ perceptions/learning about the “attitudes” necessary to conduct a PBL program, after the 4-week intervention with PBL, Q5 was applied, and the Residents’ responses are presented in

Table 6. Residents’ responses to Q5.

Questions	Resident	Response
1. What were the impressions left by the students when working in groups? Were you able to observe behaviors that revealed attitudinal knowledge? Comment.	R1	At first, everyone was very excited and dedicated, since all they needed was some basic research or asking someone they knew to plant something. As they resolved the problem, the students sought to understand how things work around them so that they could later relate them to the more abstract aspects of the first step.
	R2	Students demonstrated exceptional progress in working together, demonstrating exemplary attitudinal behaviors. The strategy of assigning responsibility for organizing the class, rather than allowing free choices, not only boosted participation by all, but also demonstrated a deep commitment to inclusion, amplifying the voices of those who initially felt more reserved.
	R3	At first, most students were motivated and very interested in the problem presented, but as the classes progressed and the difficulty of the problem presented caused some to lose some interest. With the application of PBL, it became clear how difficult it was to awaken and maintain students’ interest in the subjects. Some started out participating at the beginning and then had a drop-off, while others participated little or were involved from the beginning.
	R4	The students demonstrated that they knew how to work well in groups, although the groups were formed randomly, they always interacted with each other in order to seek new insights into problem situations.
	R5	Yes, they managed to work as a team, despite not knowing each other very well, since the groups were selected by the residents. They knew how to value each other’s opinions, respecting them. However, sometimes they valued each other’s opinions so much that they didn’t even try to debate or discuss an idea or theory. But despite this, the group worked very well together, they knew how to divide the roles well among themselves, so that everyone participated in some way. Of course, nothing is perfect. There is always one or another member of the group who does nothing at certain times, but even those who participated less acted together and helped the group in some way.
2. PBL fosters scientific thinking, however, was there a change in the way students thought/dialogued/shared knowledge when they tried to build a solution to the problem situation? Comment in great detail.	R1	Yes, at each moment they thought of something different and had a different idea, such as: making special seeds, cabins with waterproof materials, etc. Each one tried in their own way to come up with what they thought would be the correct answer according to their research. It is worth noting that, even though each one had an idea, they managed to intertwine the ideas and arrive at just one answer, encompassing the ideas of almost all the students.
	R2	Upon receiving the PS, the students approached them in a comprehensive manner, exploring all possible paths to find solutions that were not limited to the scientific aspect alone. They demonstrated remarkable attitudinal behaviors by considering not only the technical resolution, but also evaluating the social, ethical and practical impact of the proposed solutions. The students demonstrated a remarkable expansion of knowledge, adopting a highly creative and insightful approach. They enriched their analyses by connecting the problem situations with examples from everyday life, highlighting how the concepts learned were tangibly applied to real situations, which impressed me greatly.
	R3	The PBL is able to teach students how the scientific method works in a more gentle and playful way. During the classes, students were able to understand and go through the same process as a researcher, developing hypotheses and seeking ways to prove them true or false. They were able to experience some of the enthusiasm and frustrations present in the daily life of a researcher. When we started the activities, we noticed that the students did not understand the dynamics of the activity very well, because they were used to a type of problem that would give the answer quickly. At first, that was what they tried to do, putting forward many hypotheses without much depth or basis. As the activities progressed and with the joint mediation of the supervising professor and the other residents, they were able to understand that they should seek a theory that was based on the laws of physics that we know, and that this would require research and study. Thus, after a few classes, the students were gaining a greater understanding of the related subjects and had more well-founded hypotheses.
	R4	In my opinion, the fact that this was the first contact for many students with situations involving a research perspective in science, together with the short amount of time for debate among them (since they did not have time set aside to discuss the problem situation outside of class), ended up generating little depth on the topic, making it difficult for me to analyze. However, it is possible that they constructed new perceptions about thinking, reflecting and collecting scientific information necessary to arrive (or not) at an answer.
	R5	No, no change was noticed in the way students thought/dialogued/shared knowledge regarding problem-solving. Thinking about it, I realized that the students were not very interested in dialoguing and sharing knowledge. Usually, one of the members was the one who gave the most answers and started the dialogs; he always took the lead in the conversations. As for the other members, it seemed to me that they were just agreeing with everything, but no longer interested, after a certain point, in thinking about what the problem situation needed. Therefore, I believe I can say that there was a certain change, but I do not think it was necessarily positive.
3. List the main difficulties encountered when working with problem situations.	R1	Motivate students to think more than twice, direct without giving the answer, etc.
	R2	My first experience with PBL initially seemed quite complex. Creating a problem-solving situation that involved the topics we were studying in class represented one of the biggest challenges. It took a long process of discussion and collaboration to reach a consensus and build a solid problem-solving situation. However, once we found a suitable context to apply the problem-solving situation, everything started to flow quite positively. One of the difficulties I faced in this process was resisting the temptation to give my students direct answers, opting instead to play the role of mediator. This required an adjustment in my traditional teaching approach, but it allowed the students to develop their problem-solving skills in a more independent and autonomous way.
	R3	One of the biggest difficulties I encountered was in the preparation of the PS, because it must be done in a way that is stimulating and fits the level of knowledge of the class. It cannot be too difficult, and it cannot be too easy either, finding a balance. The second difficulty to highlight was maintaining the interest of the students. So, this is an important point for the teacher to analyze before introducing the PBL into the classroom. To observe whether this methodology would be appropriate for the class in order to have participation and a good use of learning and the time used for the activity.
	R4	Students always look for obvious and immediate solutions; The difficulty in understanding that even the most well-elaborated and apparently plausible hypotheses need a scientific basis and reference; Students were not rigorous when searching for explanations on Google, often being content with superficial explanations of scientific concepts; They made little use of tools such as Google Scholar
	R5	Formulating the problem situation. Even though this methodology had been explained more than once by the supervising professors, it was very difficult to understand how we should formulate the PS. Even after formulating it, it became very clear that none of them were “ideal” and therefore, many changes and reformulations were necessary to adjust them. Underestimating and overestimating the students. A very big difficulty was thinking about the students during this process. At certain times, there was very little information to be given to the students. Soon, this was changed, however, it ended up being executed in an unbalanced way. This balance was missing, since either the students were underestimated or overestimated. Directing the students. It was very clear from the beginning that the residents could help and direct the students towards a possible solution. However, this should be done in a more “superficial” and subjective way, without giving too many details and much less directly explaining how the problem worked. In the end, this turned out to be very successful, as the groups were able to come up with solutions and theories on their own, independent of the original ideas of the residents who formulated the problem situations. However, I must say that this was very difficult to do.
4. What possible improvements could be made to make the problem situation more effective?	R1	Improvements to the base text and planet data, and redirection to more reliable base texts.
	R2	As this is our first experience with PBL, we recognize that there is room for improvement. However, given our initial inexperience, we are pleased with the remarkable and positive progress we have made. One aspect that we wish we had approached differently is the richness of detail. The inclusion of images, visuals, and audio elements would have provided a more enriching and in-depth experience for students, something we plan to carefully consider in future implementations.
	R3	I believe that being presented with a greater level of detail
	R4	More time allocated to the activity, which can be distributed over more weeks. More planning by the entire pedagogical residency team in terms of thinking about strategies to assess progress, in addition to just observation. In this way, more accurate data on the process can be obtained. Before proposing, give more emphasis to the importance of problem situations to try to minimize the difficulties listed in the answer to the previous question (which would be possible with more time allocated to the activity).
	R5	Define some points better, such as what you are working on in that PS, what goals you want them to achieve, what knowledge your students already need to know, and what they should learn from that. I believe that if it were something a little more closed, without necessarily months of class content, but something more like one or two specific weeks, it could have worked better. I say the same thing about the period that this entire active methodology lasted, which was 4 weeks. I believe that if it had been summarized in 3, it would have been better, because it would have prevented the students from becoming more discouraged.
5. When participating as a tutor, it is possible to perceive the heterogeneity of the group. How were divergent opinions developed?	R1	Yes, great. As each person sought an answer, each person defended their point of view based on the knowledge they had obtained through research, but they all had the same thing in common: making lightning-proof greenhouses, which helped them reach a common denominator in their answer.
	R2	Giving students greater autonomy in their search for answers has challenged me considerably. I admit that my previous approach, which involved providing all the knowledge I had on certain topics, had limited me in certain aspects, including my ability to act as a mediator. However, the surprising results I observed as students increasingly took ownership of the content and brought perspectives that I had not even considered, has enriched my experience and made me evolve and mature significantly in my conception of tutoring.
	R3	I didn’t observe much divergence of opinions in the group I worked with, they had their own ideas, but they agreed on most of them. When a divergent point arose, they talked, explained their points of view and agreed on common points.
	R4	Members who had different perspectives were invited to defend their ideas, and of course, they would later have to seek scientific explanations that would validate their ideas. Thus, an idea could continue to be valid or discarded.
	R5	I didn’t feel that there was any real heterogeneity in the group, and I didn’t witness any kind of divergent opinion. I noticed that each member of the group was focused on a specific piece of information, on a specific piece of knowledge at a time, which ended up giving rise to a great plurality of ideas. However, as I mentioned earlier, there were certain cases in which the students simply kept quiet, didn’t want to participate and didn’t get together to debate or generate any kind of discussion or disagreement regarding this. They simply decided to accept the answer of the first person who spoke as the truth and went back to researching it, and no longer cared about presenting a different line of thought from their colleague. There are several reasons for this, perhaps because they were embarrassed to speak, perhaps because they didn’t want to expand on the subject any further, perhaps because they were lazy, since from the second week onwards, most of the students became discouraged.

. We wanted the Residents to reflect on how the students reacted to the group work and the learning they achieved. We were also interested in knowing what it was like to guide them through the process, and what improvements could be made after this first intervention with PBL.

All Residents reported that the groups were able to organize themselves, divide tasks, work as a group, negotiate divergent opinions, and were able to develop a solution to the problems presented.

Students demonstrated exceptional progress in working together, demonstrating exemplary attitudinal behaviors … also demonstrated a deep commitment to inclusion, amplifying the voices of those who initially felt more reserved.

(R2)

When a divergent point arose, they talked, explained their points of view and agreed on common points.

(R3)

The students demonstrated that they knew how to work well in groups, although the groups were formed randomly, they always interacted with each other in order to seek new insights into problem situations.

(R4)

Yes, they managed to work as a team, despite not knowing each other very well, since the groups were selected by the Residents. They knew how to value each other’s opinions, respecting them … the group worked very well together, they knew how to divide the roles well among themselves, so that everyone participated in some way.

(R5)

They also reported that the students shared knowledge (they managed to intertwine the ideas and arrive at just one answer, encompassing the ideas of almost all the students R1), were able to relate what they were learning to everyday life situations (They enriched their analyses by connecting the problem situations with examples from everyday life R2), and experienced the challenges of scientific research (The PBL is able to teach students how the scientific method works in a more gentle and playful way R3 and was the first contact for many students with situations involving a research perspective in science R4). Only R5 reported that the students lost interest and ended up accepting what a single colleague presented:

Usually, one of the members was the one who gave the most answers and started the dialogs; he always took the lead in the conversations. As for the other members, it seemed to me that they were just agreeing with everything, but no longer interested, after a certain point, in thinking about what the problem situation needed.

(R5)

For the preceptor, all Residents had difficulty developing arguments related to the problem. The students also demonstrated little or no familiarity with solving open-ended problems, and several expressed dissatisfaction with the need to conduct research after class to support the hypotheses proposed for the problem situation.

For R1 and R4, the biggest challenge was getting students to think more elaborately:

Motivate students to think more than twice

(R1)

Students always look for obvious and immediate solutions; The difficulty in understanding that even the most well-elaborated and apparently plausible hypotheses need a scientific basis and reference.

(R4)

R3 and R5 again presented developing the problem situation as a major challenge:

One of the biggest difficulties I encountered was in the preparation of the PS, because it must be done in a way that is stimulating and fits the level of knowledge of the class.

(R3)

Formulating the problem situation. Even though this methodology had been ex-plained more than once by the supervising professors, it was very difficult to understand how we should formulate the PS. Even after formulating it, it became very clear that none of them were “ideal” and therefore, many changes and re-formulations were necessary to adjust them.

(R5)

For R2, conducting PBL was a great challenge, and the exercise of mediating the construction of knowledge, instead of the traditional teaching model, helped students develop problem-solving skills:

Creating a problem-solving situation that involved the topics we were studying in class represented one of the biggest challenges. It took a long process of discussion and collaboration to reach a consensus and build a solid problem-solving situation … One of the difficulties I faced in this process was resisting the temptation to give my students direct answers, opting instead to play the role of mediator. This required an adjustment in my traditional teaching approach, but it allowed the students to develop their problem-solving skills in a more independent and autonomous way.

(R2)

When reflecting on improvements in the PS after completing the intervention, R4’s contribution stands out for considering the broader context of PBL, including the organization of the Residents’ collective work and focusing on evaluation procedures:

More time allocated to the activity, which can be distributed over more weeks. More planning by the entire pedagogical residency team in terms of thinking about strategies to assess progress, in addition to just observation. In this way, more accurate data on the process can be obtained. Before proposing, give more emphasis to the importance of problem situations to try to minimize the difficulties listed in the answer to the previous question (which would be possible with more time allocated to the activity).

(R4)

R5 also highlights the need to clarify objectives for students:

Define some points better, such as what you are working on in that PS, what goals you want them to achieve, what knowledge your students already need to know, and what they should learn from that.

(R5)

The preceptor teacher observed that despite the difficulty in mediating discussions without “giving the answer,” the Residents engaged in conversations among themselves and requested his support on several occasions. He also noted that for the Residents, the implementation of PBL enabled reflection on the practice of science through knowledge mediation. For the Residents, arguing against hypotheses (brought by students) that were at odds with the physics studied in their undergraduate program was a significant challenge. Furthermore, the Residents identified how their bases for analyzing and explaining reality were based on a well-established line of reasoning, but this did not exempt them from the difficulty of arguing with high school students about a problem they had created.

These findings inform the discussion in the next section, where we contrast Residents’ conceptions with previous PBL research.

4. Discussion

In order to identify the Residents’ conceptions about learning objectives, methodologies, and learning assessment, we analyzed the teaching plans developed for the first five meetings in the elective course (Table 3), the responses to Questionnaire Q1 (Table 2), and the observations and field records of the preceptor teacher. All Residents demonstrated an understanding of the importance of the methodology being appropriate to the objectives and profile of the class in the reflection presented in Table 2 when answering Q1. However, this reflection is not always present in the teaching plan.

Therefore, we understand that when designing the objectives, the Residents are more concerned with what they want to teach. Nevertheless, the learning objectives should serve as a guide for the student, so that they know where their studies will take them, while the teaching objectives guide the teacher’s actions (M. H. S. Silva & Lopes, 2016; Alt & Raichel, 2020). Thus, even though they think of instruments that can monitor student learning, these seem to be designed only for the teacher’s analysis. It is worth remembering that in PBL, the design of the problem must be concerned with the intended learning objectives (Akçay, 2009; Alt & Raichel, 2020).

Furthermore, observation showed that only R1 and R4 were able to implement the proposed teaching plan. R1 had more classroom experience, and R4 presented a more detailed plan consistent with their reflections. The others, R2, R3, and R5, were unable to adequately implement their teaching plans, failing to conduct appropriate learning assessments, mainly because they failed to establish a connection between learning objectives, methodology, and learning assessment (Camargo, 2019).

Analysis of Q2 allows us to infer that the Residents were able to distinguish a problem situation that meets the necessary criteria for applying a methodology such as PBL from problems commonly presented in the classroom, as argued by Akben (2019). They report that the context of the PS allows for student engagement (Novikasari, 2020; Smith et al., 2022) and provides elements for finding a solution (Akben, 2019; Baptista, 2025). The Residents are able to perceive that the process of solving the PS leads to the construction of knowledge (Akçay, 2009; Aidoo, 2023), making the student the protagonist (Kuvac & Koc, 2018; Novikasari, 2020; Aidoo, 2023; Baptista, 2025), developing declarative, procedural, and attitudinal learning, as well as creativity and critical thinking, characteristics observed in the works of Akben (2019), Saputro et al. (2020), and Aidoo (2023).

However, two points remained conflicting: the first was the fact that they were unable to develop their own PS, even though they demonstrated a thorough understanding of all its characteristics. This result also appears in the work of Ekici (2016), Kuvac and Koc (2018), and Akben (2019), where they observed the difficulty of pre-service teachers in creating problem scenarios that are relevant, complex, and suitable for group work. Alt and Raichel (2020) also observe the difficulty in developing authentic and complex problems that stimulate critical thinking and problem-solving when working with trained professionals. The same account also appears in the research conducted by Smith et al. (2022) with PBL experts from different international contexts, including STEM-related fields. For the authors, the difficulty in creating appropriate problems reflects, in part, the need for teachers to develop new skills to design problems that are sufficiently open-ended, complex, relevant, and aligned with the learning objectives and students’ capabilities.

The second point is related to breaking paradigms or personal beliefs about how to teach. This point is reflected in the Residents’ need to “know” the solution to the problem, even though they know that working with PSs in PBL requires a new approach. Smith et al. (2022) noted that it was challenging, even for PBL experts, to adopt more contemporary practices, such as focusing on the learning process and student autonomy. According to Alt and Raichel (2020), many teachers may not be willing to redefine their traditional role as an authority or expert, which directly impacts the development of PBL. The difficulty of pedagogical change was also observed in the works of Ekici (2016), Akben (2019), and Kuvac and Koc (2018). For Ekici (2016), the difficulties faced by pre-service teachers when creating problems are related to the lack of experience, the difficulty in writing clear and understandable scenarios, and the determination of problems that lead students to investigation.

However, for all other researchers, the difficulty in developing PSs suitable for the PBL approach is related to the difficulty of thinking about teaching from a different paradigm. According to Akben (2019), teachers accustomed to working with structured and traditional problems have difficulty adapting to the creation and implementation of unstructured and challenging problems, which are essential to PBL. Kuvac and Koc (2018) argue that teacher resistance to change can hinder PSs and the implementation of approaches such as PBL. They emphasize that teacher education programs traditionally focus on providing theoretical knowledge, but that the goal of teacher education should be to provide learning experiences that involve perception, assessment of situations, judgment, and choice of actions, confronting teachers with the consequences of these choices. Alt and Raichel (2020) mention that the difficulty in creating authentic problems and implementing alternative assessment methods may be related to teachers’ resistance to change. They also mention that formative assessment methods, such as self-assessment and peer review, challenge traditional power relations in universities, which may contribute to this resistance. Smith et al. (2022) point out that this transition can be challenging, especially in contexts where traditional pedagogical practices are deeply rooted.

During the application of PBL, questionnaire Q4 was answered by the Residents in order to help us understand how they perceived, up until that moment, the use of a problem situation in a PBL approach. All Residents reported that students were enthusiastic, curious, and motivated by the problem situations, despite concerns about the PBL format raised by some students, which can generate resistance to the approach (Ekici, 2016; Kuvac & Koc, 2018; Alt & Raichel, 2020; Smith et al., 2022; Aidoo, 2023). For Ekici (2016), students’ lack of familiarity with the PBL approach can hinder their understanding of scenarios and problem-solving. Therefore, they considered the PS to be a single-answer question and expected the Residents and the professor to answer the question, as observed by the preceptor. From the preceptor’s observation, it is clear that this resistance is linked to more structured teaching methods. This fact was observed in the work of Kuvac and Koc (2018), Alt and Raichel (2020), Smith et al. (2022), and Aidoo (2023).

Residents also reported that they had great difficulty in implementing PBL, although they understand that the teacher’s role should be that of a facilitator. Both their reports and the observation of the preceptor teacher indicate that they sought to maintain surveillance of their actions, avoiding responding directly to students’ questions. However, the Residents reported to the preceptor that the difficulty in leading the students’ discussions towards solving the problem situation was related to their familiarity with the traditional teaching style in Physics classes, which focuses on problems that have an expected or known solution. For Kuvac and Koc (2018) and Akben (2019), acting as a facilitator and guide, rather than a direct instructor, requires specific skills, such as asking open-ended questions, providing constructive feedback, and creating a collaborative environment, which can be challenging for teachers accustomed to traditional methods. This change in pedagogical approach is not easy to achieve in practice, neither for pre-service teachers (Kuvac & Koc, 2018; Akben, 2019) nor for experienced teachers (Alt & Raichel, 2020; Smith et al., 2022; Aidoo, 2023).

Therefore, investment in training for the development of skills such as argumentation and metacognitive regulation are necessary for the PBL approach. A. C. Silva and De Chiaro (2018) observed that teachers’ argumentative skills lead students to critical reflections that make all the difference in the PBL approach. Marthaliakirana et al. (2022) observed that the use of metacognitive prompts helped students plan, monitor, and evaluate their actions, promoting deeper and more reflective learning.

When asked about evaluation, R3, R4, and R5 consider that it should be carried out based on the way students engage in the process and apply their knowledge to solve the problem, which is a good path (Alt & Raichel, 2020; Smith et al., 2022). However, we observed that no Resident proposed the use of alternative assessment methods, such as rubrics and self-assessment, to promote students’ active involvement in the learning process, as pointed out by Alt and Raichel (2020).

All Residents reported that they would make changes to the problem situations, some in the information provided (R1, R3, and R5) and others in the presentation structure (R2 and R4). Some reflections deserve to be highlighted. R2 reports that he learned from applying PBL and that considering changes in the PS was only possible because of this experience. The same was true in Ekici’s (2016) study, where participants reported that practical application allowed them to identify flaws and continually learn how to use the method, in addition to gaining experience. Participants in the research conducted by Alt and Raichel (2020) reported in their reflective journals that the learning process encouraged them to think more deeply and critically about the educational problems addressed. Also, teachers who participated in the research by Smith et al. (2022) emphasize that the PBL process involves continuous reflection, reassessment, and adjustments to meet student needs and the learning context.

Another point worth highlighting is R5’s reflection that the PS could contain more information, demanding more attention from students. This approach is corroborated by Smith et al. (2022), who understand that the problems best suited to the PBL context are so-called “ill-structured problems,” which have multiple unknown elements, ambiguity in the concepts needed to solve them, several possible solutions, and no obvious path to finding a solution.

The preceptor’s observations during the implementation of PBL and the Residents’ reflections when responding to Q5 help us analyze the perceptions/learnings about the attitudes necessary to conduct a PBL program. Among the difficulties encountered, the Residents highlighted the following: maintaining student motivation, creating a problem situation, changing the pedagogical approach, students’ lack of competence in research skills, and more time to work with students. The difficulty in keeping students motivated may be linked to the fact that they are accustomed to receiving well-defined tasks and expect to find answers directly, without the need to explore or question, as observed in the research by Smith et al. (2022). The research by Alt and Raichel (2020) indicates that demotivation was related to discomfort with the loss of control over learning and a preference for traditional methods, such as lectures, which was also observed by the Residents and the preceptor teacher.

The difficulty in creating problem situations is related to the need for change in pedagogical practice, as discussed here (Kuvac & Koc, 2018; Akben, 2019; Alt & Raichel 2020; Smith et al. 2022). However, it is important to emphasize that Residents perceive the experience with PBL as enriching, not only for considering adaptations and improvements to the problem situation, but, most importantly, for reflecting on the necessary change in the teaching role within a PBL approach. In Ekici’s (2016) research, pre-service teachers also reported that they gained experience and better understood how to apply the method, indicating a reflection on the active and adaptive role that the teacher must assume in Problem-Based Learning environments. Similar reports are found in the works of Kuvac and Koc (2018), Alt and Raichel (2020), and Smith et al. (2022), where despite the difficulties initially encountered by teachers, the experience in PBL made them change their pedagogical approach.

The reasons why students had difficulty conducting research and gathering relevant and necessary information to solve the PS can be explained by the fact that many of them were using the method for the first time, as observed in the research developed by Ekici (2016); were not accustomed to seeking information autonomously; and, initially, did not understand that they needed to ask questions to clarify the problem, as observed by Smith et al. (2022). Alternatively, this may have been because the Residents had difficulty formulating questions that stimulated investigation, as observed by Akben (2019). The need for more time to work with students was also highlighted in the work of Aidoo (2023) and Ekici (2016).

Regarding possible improvements to the problem situation, the Residents reported the following: improving the text (R1), the visual representations (R2), the details provided (R3), strategies/instruments to monitor students’ progress (R4), and informing the learning objectives (R5). The first three proposals are linked to the elaboration and presentation of the problem situation, which is a relevant aspect highlighted in the works of Ekici (2016), Kuvac and Koc (2018), Akben (2019), Alt and Raichel (2020), and Smith et al. (2022). The last two are related, since clearly establishing objectives is essential in helping students construct their learning (M. H. S. Silva & Lopes, 2016) and establishing formative assessment (Camargo, 2019).

5. Conclusions

Our first research objective was to identify Residents’ conceptions of learning objectives, methodologies, and learning assessment. We observed that Residents had difficulty aligning learning assessments with learning objectives, and that these objectives were not designed to allow students to monitor their learning but rather to define what or how to teach. This aspect may reveal why Residents have difficulty establishing assessment processes aligned with formative assessment, such as rubrics, feedback, peer review, and self-assessment.

The Residents also had difficulties in establishing a problem situation and conducting the intended learning development process in a PBL approach. However, despite the difficulties encountered by the Residents when implementing the PBL approach, the students developed the skills and learning expected. The difficulties reported by the Residents have also been observed in other studies with pre-service teachers (Ekici, 2016; Kuvac & Koc, 2018; Akben, 2019), teachers who are already in the field (Alt & Raichel, 2020), and PBL experts (Smith et al., 2022).

However, it is important to emphasize that establishing the possibility of implementing PBL in physics teaching in basic education is a necessary condition for learning this methodology. Moreover, establishing reflective processes is essential for pre-service teachers to confront the need to change their pedagogical paradigms to ensure learning occurs. In this sense, the Pedagogical Residency Program proved to be the ideal opportunity for this training and to analyze the Residents’ perceptions/learning about the “attitudes” necessary to conduct a PBL program. Aspects such as supervision by a preceptor throughout the immersion in the school and follow-up meetings with the coordinator at the HEI are essential for this contact with methodologies that diverge from current teaching paradigms. The reflective questionnaires used in the research played a fundamental role in helping the Residents establish an understanding of the differences between traditional methodological approaches and PBL.

This research has some limitations, such as the inability to establish an adequate action plan with the Residents for the PBL implementation phase. Another limitation was the inability to involve this same group of Residents, based on their reflections and learning, in proposing, implementing, and analyzing a new PBL proposal. Time was also a limiting factor, both for the Residents to acquire knowledge of PBL-related aspects and for the HEI coordinator and the preceptor to provide feedback and more appropriate support to the Residents. We understand that this research presents us with some important challenges in teacher training, which should be considered based on three strategies.

The first is the strategic study of teaching planning for the use of PBL. It is necessary to understand that the learning objectives in a PBL approach go beyond declarative learning, but involve skills such as critical and creative thinking, developing questions and hypotheses, conducting research using technological tools such as the Internet and Artificial Intelligence, and knowing how to share, discuss, and build knowledge collaboratively. To support this learning, it is necessary to develop formative assessment strategies, like rubrics and peer assessment, where feedback to students is the central point.

The second strategy is developing problem situations that consider previously defined objectives, are interesting and challenging, promote engagement, encourage students to think critically and creatively, and are aligned with students’ learning level. Finally, the most challenging and perhaps most necessary strategy is the development of an appropriate pedagogical approach. The results obtained in this study, along with findings from other studies with pre-service teachers, highlight that metacognitive regulation and argumentative skills are needed to implement PBL. Metacognitive regulation makes the teacher constantly reflect on their practice, in addition to helping students set learning goals, reflect on their processes, and mediate new meanings based on existing knowledge (Alt & Raichel, 2020; Marthaliakirana et al., 2022; Baptista, 2025). Argumentative skills will allow the teacher to foster a cooperative learning environment, where students can express their opinions and work as a team, learning to develop their arguments based on scientific knowledge (A. C. Silva & De Chiaro, 2018; Baptista, 2025).