Challenge-based learning curriculum development: a suitable framework for engineering education

Collaborative learning communities are becoming popular in engineering education. The department of Industrial Design at Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) has almost 20 years of experience in the organization of small-scale and challengebased education (CBL). In Industrial Design, students work in ‘collaborative communities’ called ‘squads’ that share an interest in specific application domains. Within the squads, vertical learning takes place and students from different bachelor and master years exchange experiences and learn together in a learning community while solving open-ended societal challenges. The purpose of the research was to map the characteristics of two ID squads ( for the purpose of this study we will name the squads Vitality and Crafting Everyday Soft Things (CEST), and study the educational elements influencing students’ learning. In nature, the two squads share the same educational principles, however, the differ in the organization of education and the level guidance provided, decreasing, to some extent, the open-endedness characteristics of CBL. To conduct the study, we used the constructive alignment as a research framework to map the alignment between vision, teaching and learning activities and assessment of the squads. Results show alignment of the Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) with teaching and learning activities, and assessment in the two squads. The analysis draws attention to the similarities and differences between the two squads, specially in the manner of structuring learning. Finally, the suitability of the framework to analyse the CBL curriculum in engineering education contexts is demonstrated. This research opens up opportunities for future studies to investigate learning in small communities

Coaching practices in challenge-based learning:Characteristics in students' projects

Coaching students in CBL settings requires specific approaches. Although CBL has similar characteristics as Design-based learning (DBL), the educational concept and approach applied in the engineering programs at the Eindhoven University of Technology for over the past twenty years, CBL evolves from the DBL concept to emphasize the importance of addressing the sustainable development goals in education. Despite the fact that DBL coaching characteristics have been investigated, it becomes interesting to research these practices in CBL settings. The aim of this research study was to investigate coaching practices and explore differences among experienced coaches versus novice coaches, and the influence of the project set-up (e.g. group versus individual projects). The study was conducted in the department of Industrial Design, where students work on open- ended and hands-on challenges in groups or individually in the squad, an educational organizational form, where education and research come together. Project coaches and teacher coaches support the students to gain and apply knowledge and in the supervision of self-directed learning. The research method consisted of observations of coaching sessions (N=9), and semi-structured individual interviews with coaches (N=13 coaches) of various levels of experiences. Semistructured interviews with individual (N=14) and groups of students (N=3) took place. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis and categories within the framework of coaching in Design-based Learning by Gómez Puente (2013) and the theoretical framework of Cognitive Apprenticeship by Collins (1991). Results indicate that the 3 most frequently used coaching practices are a) asking open-ended questions; b) providing feedback on progress in technical design and design process; c) encouraging students to explore alternatives for problem solving using different perspectives. The results are in line with teaching the discipline as design process are embedded in uncertain and creative undertakings in which students are motivated to think big in proposing solutions. Novice coaches focused more on technical design while more experienced coaches encouraged students to reflect on their learning process and to become more self-regulated learners.</p

Analyzing student-teacher interactions in challenge-based learning

Challenge-based learning (CBL) exposes students to the complexities of openended and real-life challenges and encourages them to be in the lead of their learning. The role of teachers remains important but shifts from being the expert to the role of a coach who gradually scaffolds students into becoming independent learners. Accordingly, the interplay between teachers' and students' regulation of teaching and learning can result in friction and influence students' learning experience. This study explores incidents of constructive or destructive friction between student and teacher regulation during a 9-week CBL course for first-year engineering students. Thematic analysis is employed to identify critical incidents of friction during students' learning via analyzing students' weekly learning portfolios. Results suggest that students' experience in CBL is not linear, and there is a constant interplay between students' ability to regulate their learning and teachers' scaffolding. Initial exposure to CBL was characterized by friction in student and teacher interactions. Several students increased their self-regulated learning skills by resolving the initial friction by adopting a more proactive approach to their learning by actively asking questions and feedback from their teachers. The findings of this study are particularly relevant for CBL, where much attention is paid to students' autonomy, self-directedness, and collaboration. Building on the insights of this research, we make recommendations for further research and educational practice

Conceptualizing Socially Shared Regulation In Challenge-Based Learning

Students in Challenge-based learning (CBL) courses work in multidisciplinary groups to develop a solution to an open-ended and ill-defined challenge.Thus, in CBL, students need to regulate their learning individually and collectively to learn. Socially shared regulation of learning (SSRL) refers to the development of collective and co-constructed task perceptions or shared goals by multiple students working as a group. Existing knowledge about conceptualizing and researching SSRL in CBL is currently lacking. In this paper, we provide evidence from a qualitative study we conducted in a CBL course, using analysis of individual learning portfolios and in-depth interviews about students’ perceptions of SRRL. We discuss, firstly, which individual characteristics students perceive as important for SSRL. Secondly, we discuss the identified processes of SSRL identified in our data. Finally, we discuss how groups with high and low SSRL differ. For example, groups with high SSRL spend more time in task planning and role division. They also discussed shared goals early in the process and frequently monitored and evaluated their collective work and progress. On the other hand, groups with low SSRL need guidance individually and as a group to plan and evaluate their activities in different project stages. In addition, they had fewer conversations as a group about their shared goals, and they had more difficulties getting along at a social level. Finally, theoretical implications, practical recommendations, and future directions for research are discussed

Do critical incidents lead to critical reflection among medical students?

Context: Medical students are exposed during their training to a wide range of experiences and behaviors that can affect their learning regarding professionalism and their behavior and attitudes towards patient-centered care. The aim of the study is to explore learning associated with critical incidents and levels of critical reflection among medical students. Approach: Medical students’ were invited to narrate a critical incident and reflect on the learning associated with it. All students’ narratives were audio-recorded and analyzed thematically. Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning was used to analyze the level of reflection reached in students’ narratives. Findings: For the present analysis critical incidents narrated by 70 clinical students (4th–6th year) were included. Fifty-two of them were females. Students’ experiences are derived from three types of interactions: observed interactions between doctors and patients, personal interactions between students and patients, and interactions between doctors and students. Reflections deriving from the experiences included: behaving to patients as humans not as cases, emotional aspects of care, doctors as role models, skills needed when working under pressure, ‘tasting’ the real profession, emotional management, the importance of communication skills, teaching qualities of doctors, becoming a doctor, and reflections of future practice. Analyzing the actual level of reflection indicated that only 32 (45.7%) students were categorized as reflectors. Conclusions: Student interactions with doctors and patients provide insights about; the daily experience of being a doctor, the most common challenges, what qualities are necessary for being a doctor and what do they need to develop their professional identity. However, it is noteworthy that while the majority of students shared a critical incident crucial to their professional development, there is little evidence of critical reflection

How do students regulate their learning in challenge-based learning?:An analysis of students’ learning portfolios

Self-regulated learning (SRL) is one the key pedagogical principles of Challenge-based Learning (CBL) in engineering curricula. Students in CBL have the primary responsibility for planning, implementing, and evaluating their effort and progress. This study explores the use of learning portfolios as a pedagogical tool aimed to document students’ SRL in a CBL course for 1st year engineering students. The research question was: How is SRL documented in a personal learning portfolio during a CBL course? Students were expected to work for 9 weeks with a group of peers on an open-ended challenge. Students were asked to complete a learning portfolio at 3 moments. In week 1, they were asked to set, individually, 5 disciplinary and 5 professional goals they wanted to achieve and in week 5 and 9 they were encouraged to reflect on the progress and attainment of those goals. Twelve students’ learning portfolios were included for analysis in this study. Content analysis of the learning portfolios revealed that students in week 1, described goal setting and in week 5 described SRL processes such as monitoring and self- evaluation while in the final submission in week 9, students reflected on the attainment of their individual goals and the overall success of their project, revealing a need for balancing their own disciplinary and professional goals and the overall goals of group they were members of. The study suggests that learning portfolios provide a useful instrument to encourage SRL in CBL. Limitations and implications for education and research are discussed

Engineering Students as Co-creators in an Ethics of Technology Course

Research on the effectiveness of case studies in teaching engineering ethics in higher education is underdeveloped. To add to our knowledge, we have systematically compared the outcomes of two case approaches to an undergraduate course on the ethics of technology: a detached approach using real-life cases and a challenge-based learning (CBL) approach with students and stakeholders acting as co-creators (CC). We first developed a practical typology of case-study approaches and subsequently tested an evaluation method to assess the students’ learning experiences (basic needs and motivation) and outcomes (competence development) and staff interpretations and operationalizations, seeking to answer three questions: (1) Do students in the CBL approach report higher basic needs, motivation and competence development compared to their peers in the detached approach? (2) What is the relationship between student-perceived co-creation and their basic needs, motivation and competence development? And (3) what are the implications of CBL/CC for engineering-ethics teaching and learning? Our mixed methods analysis favored CBL as it best supported teaching and research goals while satisfying the students’ basic needs and promoting intrinsic motivation and communication competences. Competence progress in other areas did not differ between approaches, and motivation in terms of identified regulation was lower for CBL, with staff perceiving a higher workload. We propose that our case typology model is useful and that as a method to engage students as co-creators, CBL certainly merits further development and evaluation, as does our effectiveness analysis for engineering ethics instruction in general and for case-study approaches in particular

Engineering Students as Co-creators in an Ethics of Technology Course

Research on the effectiveness of case studies in teaching engineering ethics in higher education is underdeveloped. To add to our knowledge, we have systematically compared the outcomes of two case approaches to an undergraduate course on the ethics of technology: a detached approach using real-life cases and a challenge-based learning (CBL) approach with students and stakeholders acting as co-creators (CC). We first developed a practical typology of case-study approaches and subsequently tested an evaluation method to assess the students’ learning experiences (basic needs and motivation) and outcomes (competence development) and staff interpretations and operationalizations, seeking to answer three questions: (1) Do students in the CBL approach report higher basic needs, motivation and competence development compared to their peers in the detached approach? (2) What is the relationship between student-perceived co-creation and their basic needs, motivation and competence development? And (3) what are the implications of CBL/CC for engineering-ethics teaching and learning? Our mixed methods analysis favored CBL as it best supported teaching and research goals while satisfying the students’ basic needs and promoting intrinsic motivation and communication competences. Competence progress in other areas did not differ between approaches, and motivation in terms of identified regulation was lower for CBL, with staff perceiving a higher workload. We propose that our case typology model is useful and that as a method to engage students as co-creators, CBL certainly merits further development and evaluation, as does our effectiveness analysis for engineering ethics instruction in general and for case-study approaches in particular