Extended abstract
Exploring characteristics and transition challenges in challenge-based learning: A study of upper secondary and higher STEM education. This study explores the characteristics of Challenge-Based Learning (CBL) in secondary and higher STEM education settings in the Netherlands with the aim to uncover how students experience the transition between these two educational settings. CBL education is becoming more popular both in secondary (Johnson et al., 2009; Johnson & Brown, 2011) and higher education (Taconis & Bekkers, 2023) as a means for students to learn actively and collaboratively within a wide range of STEM content (Gallagher & Savage 2020). In secondary education the school subject ‘Onderzoek en Ontwerpen (O&O – Research and Design) is taught since 2005 in 107 schools in the Netherlands (see: technasium.nl). A challenge from a real stakeholder is sought and the students need to provide a solution to the challenge working in small groups. In engineering education CBL is more common (Doulougeri et. al., 2024), with Eindhoven University of Technology now introducing CBL education to each year of its undergraduate programs. Even at first glance differences between secondary education and higher education in our research context are expected to be present. In secondary education O&O, the challenges are not limited to STEM oriented stakeholders (a challenge for instance was to design a modern library bus, by the local council), whilst at the technical universities the STEM stakeholder is usually a given (Galdames-Calderón et al., 2024). From a development perspective differences between the two settings can be expected, for example in working successfully in a group. More time has elapsed when students reach university level, which suggests the ability to work successfully in groups will also have changed. This indicates that different guidance or coaching could be present in secondary education than in higher education. By comparing CBL characteristics in secondary and higher education and examining the existing practices experienced by teachers and students and challenges in CBL education in both contexts, the research will highlight possible frictions and gaps (Gale & Parker, 2012) when transitioning between the two CBL learning environments. The findings will inform the design of an intervention, that aims to improve student experiences and outcomes during transitions. Research Questions: 1. What are the characteristics of CBL for in secondary and higher STEM education settings? 2. How do these characteristics manifest in teaching practice from teacher and students’ perspectives? 3. What can be learned on the transition of students between these two educational settings? Method The research is framed within educational design research (McKenney, 2018) setting and explores CBL education in secondary and higher education. This exploratory cycle includes a comparative literature review to identify differences in CBL teaching practices between secondary and higher STEM education. The comparison results will shape the design framework, which will be reviewed by CBL experts in both contexts (Tessmer, 1993). After adjustments and validation, the framework will be used to observe and analyze teaching practices in both educational settings. The comparative case study analysis will include university courses of an institution that has CBL mandatory courses in undergraduate education and secondary schools particularly Technasium schools . Class and course observations, along with semi-structured interviews with students and teachers, will highlight differences between theoretical expectations and actual experiences in CBL practices. The interviewees will also be asked to identify frictions and gaps expected and/or experienced in the transition between secondary and higher STEM education. The analysis will involve coding of observation and interview data for triangulation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Besides the validated framework, results are expected to yield to what extent the characteristics of CBL are seen and experienced in both the settings. Participants for this research will be approached after obtaining ethics approval. In secondary education, schools with over six years of CBL experience will be targeted, ensuring their students have transitioned to higher education. For higher education, institution that has adopted CBL for more than two years in its undergraduate curriculum will be selected. Participant selection is based on the premise that when the formal curriculum has been adapted to CBL education more teachers and students will be involved and the so-called ‘enthusiastic frontrunner’ effect will have less influence on the study’s results. Expected outcomes The study should provide a validated framework of characteristics of CBL in STEM education including insight into the differences between secondary and higher education settings. This qualitative study into CBL practice will reveal any frictions or gaps in transitioning from one setting to the other which shall lead to designing an intervention further to diminish the experienced frictions. References Doulougeri, K., Vermunt, J. D., Bombaerts, G., & Bots, M. (2024). Challenge-based learning implementation in engineering education: A systematic literature review. Journal of Engineering Education, XX(X). Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20588 Galdames-Calderón M, Stavnskær Pedersen A, Rodriguez-Gomez D. (2024). Systematic Review: Revisiting Challenge-Based Learning Teaching Practices in Higher Education. Education Sciences, 14(9):1008. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091008 Gale, T., & Parker, S. (2012). Navigating change: a typology of student transition in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 39(5), 734–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.721351 Gallagher, S. E., & Savage, T. (2020). Challenge-based learning in higher education: an exploratory literature review. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(6), 1135–1157. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1863354 Johnson, L.F., Smith, R.S., Smythe, J.T. & Varon, R.K. (2009). Challenge-Based Learning: An Approach for Our Time. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved October 15, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/182083/. Johnson, L. & Brown, S. (2011). Challenge Based Learning: The Report from the Implementation Project. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved October 14, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/49837/. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2018). Conducting educational design research. Routledge. Taconis, R., & Bekker, M. M. (2023). Challenge Based Learning as authentic learning environment for STEM identity construction. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1144702. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1144702 Technasium in numbers. (n.d.) Technasium. Retrieved October 08, 2024, from https://www.technasium.nl/technasium/technasium-in-cijfers/ Tessmer, M. (1993). Planning and conducting formative evaluations. London: Kogan Page.
