Poster pitches

Gaining more and more popularity, challenge-based learning (CBL) is a teaching approach that uses co-creation between an array of academic and external stakeholders to enable self-directed learning for students. CBL usually involves students from different disciplines working together in teams to address real-world challenges in an open-ended fashion, thereby promoting interdisciplinarity and innovation (Gallagher & Savage, 2020; Höffken & Lazendic-Galloway, 2024; Malmqvist et al., 2015). CBL fosters collaboration among disparate stakeholders from diverse fields such as academia, government, NGOs, and industry to provide a rich educational experience for students, allowing them to gain theoretical knowledge and real-life insights through autonomous experiential learning (Brundiers et al., 2010; Mori Junior et al., 2019; Sulkowski et al., 2020). This collaboration between students, academics and external actors has been identified as a key competency in CBL (Diaz Martinez, 2019; Membrillo-Hernández et al., 2019; Santos et al., 2015), providing the approach with unique strengths such as deepening student knowledge (Serrano et al., 2018), motivating and engaging students (Morales-Mendez et al., 2019), and providing students with industry specific training (Mora-Salinas et al., 2019). The advantages CBL provides has resulted in technical universities in the Netherlands and beyond committing to including the approach in a greater percentage of the courses offered, with these offerings expanding at an accelerating rate (Pepin & Vonk, 2022). This, however, presents new challenges, with many best practices struggling to scale from being offered to smaller numbers of students to larger numbers of students. Notable among these is the necessity to align the disparate stakeholders involved in a CBL project at scale. And while much excellent research into CBL has been undertaken recently, it has frequently focused on interactions with students (Gallagher & Savage, 2020; Leijon et al., 2021; Martin & Bombaerts, 2022), with little attention paid to systemic considerations for implementing CBL. This research project seeks to address this, focusing on bringing a systems perspective to the challenge of aligning the expectations held by stakeholders involved in a CBL project by answering the question why and how are expectations aligned among ecosystem stakeholders during a challenge-based learning project at TU/e? To provide a systems perspective, this research project employed the systems theory of Niklas Luhmann (Luhmann, 1978, 1997, 2020). Luhmann saw systems as being autonomous and independent, with each system being operationally closed and having its own logic (Luhmann, 1995; Seidl & Becker, 2006). Luhmann thought of organizations as a type of social system – with each operating as a decision-making machine and having its own aim (Cooren & Seidl, 2019; Luhmann, 2018). But these organizations’ aims are not going to be the same, so in order for them to coordinate they need a shared goal that they can decide on and work towards together. It is imperative that each system reaches its own decision, as on Luhmann’s view these systems are totally independent of one another. Pretorius et al. (2024) point out that for these different actors and organizations to coordinate, they need to establish shared expectations of one another – as without these expectations, shared decisions cannot be reached (Luhmann, 2002, 2005). Therefore, the project investigated the alignment of expectations among stakeholders involved in a CBL project. To that end, this research project examined three separate examples of CBL being implemented in courses at TU/e – two at undergraduate level and one at master’s level – taking each as a case study. In each, semi structured interviews were conducted with the responsible teacher(s), multiple challenge owners, the business collaborator and partnership managers that managed the initial engagements with the challenge owners, and several of the students that participated in these courses. These interviews sought to understand how expectations were established and managed throughout the CBL process, focusing on alignment and any situations where misalignment may have occurred between stakeholders. In this regard, data collection was aimed at more accurately and easily recallable significant events (Chell & Oakey, 2004), so that events could be recounted by at least two informants or data sources to ensure potential biases or lapses in memory could be offset (Golden, 1992; Huber & Power, 1985). In addition to the semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, observational and archival data were collected to allow for triangulation across multiple sources (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2013). These data were analyzed, allowing for the construction of a narrative (Eisenhardt, 1989; Langley, 2007) that could be understood as each CBL project progressed over time. The narrative was considered from the perspective of systems thinking (Sterman, 2000), resulting in the production of a causal loop diagram (CLD) that describes the process of expectation alignment at work. The CLD comprises of three input points, one reinforcing loop and five balancing loops that together detail how responsible teachers, students, challenge owners, and business collaborator and partnership managers align their expectations with one another. In this CLD, responsible teachers and challenge owners connect with all of the other stakeholders, while students and business collaborator and partnership managers interact with responsible teachers and challenge owners, but not one another. We learn from the CLD that alignment of expectations among stakeholders is a process that must be actively managed, as there is always the risk that well-intentioned ambition can cause expectations to rise well beyond that which can be achieved. While expectations must be tempered, it’s also the case that ambition must be allowed to drive the process, as without this input the creative spark that allows for innovation might be doused. The CLD shows that the risk for snowballing expectations of a CBL project arises when actors with uninhibited ambition engage exclusively with one another. The greatest risk of this is found in the interaction between excited students and ambitious challenge owners who, with the best intentions, may drive the project’s goals to heights too lofty to be attainable, thereby resulting in a project that cannot succeed.

Introduction Within Challenge-based Learning (CBL) students engage in open challenges while working in interdisciplinary teams. In these teams, students frequently face different triggers, such as competing goals, the lack of shared mental models or the lack of ability to narrow down a challenge [1,2,3]. It is important that teams regulate these triggers as leaving them unresolved can lead to social conflicts which might harm the team's capacity to achieve its goals and objectives. However, students often experience difficulties with the socially shared regulation of these triggers, increasing the risk of social conflicts [4]. A theoretical framework about socially shared regulation of learning (SSRL) indicates an interplay between (1) individual characteristics and the regulation of team members, (2) the team characteristics and socially shared regulation of the team, and (3) the characteristics of the learning context [5]. While these relationships have been researched in traditional learning contexts, an understanding of how they relate in the context of CBL is limited. Obtaining a better understanding of these relationships is important as the CBL context differs significantly from more traditional learning contexts as students spend more time in teams working on open challenges in a learning context that changes over time [1,6]. A study in the field of SSRL in CBL indicates that individual characteristics related to motivation, preferences towards interdisciplinary teamwork, and the level of experience with active learning approaches influence SSRL [7]. Other studies suggest that the characteristics of the CBL learning context such as the presence of ambiguity, the open-endedness of the challenge, and the different phases of a CBL project can influence SSRL and the triggers [1,6]. Underexplored is which types of triggers occur during the CBL course and how student teams regulate these triggers. Therefore, this research aims to understand the relationship between triggers and SSRL within the CBL context by answering the following research questions: 1. What kind of triggers do student teams experience during Challenge-based Learning? 2. What kind of shared regulatory strategies do students exhibit as a response to the triggers? 3. How do the team members experience triggers and shared regulatory responses as individuals and as a team? Methods This study will be conducted in a CBL course where students work in teams on an open challenge lasting 8-10 weeks. Data will be collected in an authentic context using a mixed-method approach to identify triggers and their relationship with SSRL throughout the different phases of a CBL project. The study will capture both the students' individual and team experiences with the triggers and SSRL. Participants The participants will be 2 teams of 4 to 5 bachelor engineering students. Data collection Data will be collected during the entire challenge, resulting in a rich data set with a high sample specificity, justifying the smaller sample size. Students are asked for informed consent. Weekly team meetings will be video-recorded providing insights into when and which triggers happen and how they relate to the shared regulation response. Interviews will be conducted with individual team members at the end of the course where segments of the video-recordings are used as prompts to let students reflect and elaborate on their individual and team experiences towards the triggers and SSRL. Data analysis Qualitative content analysis and quantitative lag sequential analysis are used to analyze the video recordings of the meetings. Video segments will be coded deductively using a coding scheme based on a trigger regulation framework [8]. This analysis identifies significant patterns and sequences between triggers and SSRL. A thematic analysis will be used to analyze the interview data to find themes and patterns between triggers, SSRL, individual, and team experiences. Expected research outcome This study results in an overview of when different triggers occur during various phases of a CBL project, their relationship to types of SSRL, and themes and patterns about how individual and team experiences relate to triggers and SSRL. The methods used, indirectly measure internal (meta)cognitive and emotional regulation processes, which may affect measurement accuracy. Educational impact The results can contribute to further research by providing insight into where SSRL most likely occurs, namely, after a trigger. This can help future researchers to more accurately measure SSRL as they have a better indication of where to measure it. The outcomes are also important for CBL educators and students as it can make them more aware of which events require which regulation response. This awareness will enable them to develop support mechanisms to respond to triggers. References 1. López-Fernández, D., Salgado Sánchez, P., Fernández, J., Tinao, I., & Lapuerta, V. (2020). Challenge-Based Learning in Aerospace Engineering Education: The ESA Concurrent Engineering Challenge at the Technical University of Madrid. Acta Astronautica, 171, 369–377. 2. Rodríguez-Chueca, J., Molina-García, A., García-Aranda, C., Pérez, J., & Rodríguez, E. (2020). Understanding sustainability and the circular economy through flipped classroom and challenge-based learning: An innovative experience in engineering education in Spain. Environmental Education Research, 26(2), 238–252. 3. Hadwin, A., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2017). Self-Regulation, Co-Regulation, and Shared Regulation in Collaborative Learning Environments. In Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (2nd ed.). Routledge. 4. Näykki, P., Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., & Järvenoja, H. (2014). Socio-emotional conflict in collaborative learning—A process-oriented case study in a higher education context. International Journal of Educational Research, 68, 1–14. 5. Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). Exploring Socially Shared Regulation in the Context of Collaboration. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 12(3), 267–286. 6. Jensen, M. B., Utriainen, T. M., & Steinert, M. (2018). Mapping remote and multidisciplinary learning barriers: Lessons from challenge-based innovation at CERN. European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(1), 40–54. 7. Doulougeri, K., Bombaerts, G., Bots, M., & Vermunt, J. D. (2023). Conceptualizing Socially Shared Regulation in Challenge-Based Learning 8. Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. (2024). Triggers for self-regulated learning: A conceptual framework for advancing multimodal research about SRL. Learning and Individual Differences, 115, 102526.

Background: In Challenge-Based Learning (CBL), real-world, open-ended challenges drive student learning (Doulougeri et al., 2024), with feedback playing a vital role in helping students recognize key learning moments in the learning trajectory (Martin et al., 2024) and thus improving the quality of education (Bombaerts etal., 2019). Providing quality feedback can be time-consuming for teachers, especially in large classes. Peer feedback, however, offers a valuable alternative, motivating student learning by having students engage in evaluating each other’s work (Bombaerts et al., 2022). This study tests a peer feedback approach designed to (1) reduce teacher workload in giving feedback and (2) ensure students receive meaningful, high-quality feedback (Gielen et al., 2010). By implementing a single cycle of peer feedback, we explore its potential to effectively support student learning in large CBL classrooms. Purpose. As a potential answer to the need of qualitative peer feedback, we test an approach of one cycle of peer feedback that (1) minimizes effort for teachers to give feedback and (2) that maximizes the quality of the feedback for students. Set-up. The peer feedback set-up is tested in a 5 ECTS and 8 weeks CBL course on Ethics of Technology, in a second year, second quarter for 250 Chemical Engineering and Chemistry, Electrical Engineers, and Automotive students. In teams of 5 students, students are asked to give a technical and ethical advise to their stakeholder, using the ethical cycle (Van de Poel and Royakkers, 2007). Students have two two-hour contact moments per week where they work on the application of ethical theories to their advice. In these meetings, they discuss in their own groups, give feedback to two other groups, and discuss in class. Per class group of 60-120 students, teachers and student assistants with an ethics background also give feedback during these contact moments. The students get feedback from the stakeholders three times in a 45 minutes’ meeting: at the beginning they learn about the challenge and can ask questions, in the middle of the course they can give their progress, and at the end there is a poster presentation about their results. The end product is an executive summary to the stakeholder, with the poster and their ethical cycle argumentation in attachment. On top of this feedback process, there will be one feedback cycle of the product. Students hand in their version of the ethical cycle in week 5. The report will be sent to 5 other students from 5 different groups. In week 6, every student gives feedback on the paper received. For this feedback, students will use a rubric (see a part below). Each student provides (1) a grade, (2) the reason why it is this grade; and (3) what could be done to get one grade higher. Each group thus receives 5 peer-reviews. The teacher will receive all grades and feedbacks, will check all grades, and will confirm or adapt the average grade (20% of the total grade). Expectations that will be tested. • Students have to work with the rubric. They are invited to better understand what the rubric means. • Students give feedback. This helps them to learn. • One group of 5 students reads 5 interim papers. This gives them the idea how their work relates to that of others. • Each group gets 5 feedbacks per rubric item. This should provide at least a few good and useful feedbacks. The five together should level up with one teacher. • Grades and comments will be listed. This gives teachers an indication of groups that are doing well or have problems. • We will perform a sensitivity analysis on how the 5 grades per rubric item differ among students. It will give an indication of how coherent the student feedbacks are. • A student only has to do one paper, teacher has to do 24, generating students respect for the teacher. Results and Conclusion The course takes place from November 12 2024 to January 28 2025. At the CBL conference, we will show the results. References Bombaerts, G., Doulougeri, K., & Nieveen, N. (2019). Quality of ethics education in engineering programs using Goodlad’s curriculum typology. SEFI Annual Conference. Bombaerts, G., & Vaessen, B. (2022). Motivational dynamics in basic needs profiles: Toward a person‐centered motivation approach in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 111(2), 357-375. 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. Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and instruction, 20(4), 304-315. Martin, D. A., & Bombaerts, G. (2024). What is the structure of a Challenge Based Learning project? A shortitudinal trajectory analysis of student process behaviours in an interdisciplinary engineering course. European Journal of Engineering Education, 1-31. Van de Poel, I., & Royakkers, L. (2007). The ethical cycle. Journal of Business Ethics, 71, 1-13. Example rubric item: Ethical Cycle Problem-Statement - 0: Absent - 2: Some concepts mentioned, but little link with values, conflicting values, or moral problem formulation. - 4: Values mentioned are not moral values. Explanation of why values are conflicting is not present or sound. No real moral problem formulation is present. - 6: The moral problem formulation indicates two or more important moral values at stake and why they are conflicting. - 8: The moral problem formulation indicates the moral values at stake that are crucial for the problem. The conflict in the case indicates the urgency and importance of the problem. - 10: The moral problem formulation indicates the moral values at stake that are crucial for the problem. The explanation how they conflict each other in the case indicates the urgency and importance of the problem. The argumentation is sound enough to convince critical opponents.

Microscopy is an essential technique in biology, chemistry and physics. Therefore, training in microscopy is crucial in science education. However, there is a gap between theory and practice as microscopes are perceived as “black boxes” rather than instruments that use geometrical and wave optics to provide an image. Active learning methods such as challenge based learning can bridge this gap. We present a challenge based learning course, which uses the open-source microscopy platform UC2 to encourage students to answer a relevant research question while exploring the anatomy of microscopes. The students follow a full research path, in which they start with the design of a microscope, followed by building, calibrating and using it for sample analysis. The challenges we offer are open and versatile, and tailored to the interests of the students. This means, that each group ended up with a different challenge. After two initial lectures about theory, the students started experimenting. A shop was opened for them that contained all the available components, but the students were also allowed to design and print new components with the 3D printers of Innovation Space at the Eindhoven University of Technology. The students obtained very diverse results ranging from tile scans of a full biopsy to moving micromotors in solution. Because of the openness to creativity and the diverse challenges, the students highly appreciate the course. When the students successfully fulfill all the requirements of the course, we believe we give them the tools they will need in their future microscopy projects; from choosing the correct microscopy set-up to scientifically correct processing of the data.

Theoretical and educational significance: Dealing with complex global challenges related to sustainable development requires problem-solving competences (Wiek et al., 2011). Effective problem-solving involves identifying and defining the problem, planning a solution strategy by organizing prior knowledge and resources, implementing the solution, and continuously monitoring and evaluating it (Funke, 2019). Challenge Based Learning (CBL) fosters practical problem-solving by engaging students with complex, real world challenges. Crucial stages in CBL include exploring a broad topic by investigating the challenge and implementing and evaluating solutions afterwards (Gallagher & Savage, 2020). However, recent research suggests that analyzing and defining complex open-ended challenges in CBL can be difficult for students (e.g. Detoni et al., 2019; Jensen et al., 2017). Mourtos (2010) highlighted the educational relevance of addressing the cognitive and affective challenges students face when dealing with open-ended problems. Affective difficulties, such as disagreement with decisions or in communication, can affect motivation, while cognitive challenges involve understanding key concepts of the problem and their application. Funke (2019) suggests strategies like simplifying problems into smaller parts and connecting relationships between variables to better manage complexity effectively. These theoretical approaches provide a framework to analyze strategies and difficulties in problem analysis and definition. Since research on problem analysis and definition is limited in the CBL context, this study aims to explore difficulties and strategies that students face when working on open-ended problems in CBL by using an observational method. The study will address the following questions: What strategies and difficulties can be observed in problem analysis and definition processes of students involved in CBL courses? Methodology: Contributing to the exploratory nature of the research question, an observational study was conducted utilizing a semi structured observation protocol and audio recordings of group work at the beginning of English speaking CBL courses where students worked on complex, open-ended challenges from external stakeholders. Three groups taking part in the CBL course and consisting of 3-4 students (N = 11 in total) from different study programs and degrees gave written consent to participate in the study and were observed. Data were collected by conducting real time observation using a pre developed, semi structured observation protocol applying an event based approach. To enhance reliability, additional audio transcriptions were recorded. The observation protocol focuses on recording the frequency of systematic behaviors across three deductive main categories, drawn from the findings of Mourtos (2010) and Funke (2019): clarity of communication (CLCom), understanding and application of key concepts of the challenge (KCapp), analysis and simplification of the problem (AnSimp). The protocol also provides a space for observer comments to develop inductive main and subcategories. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted on observational data from the protocol. Quantitative analysis focused on behavior frequency, while qualitative analysis employed Kuckartz and Rädiker’s (2023) content analysis method to develop inductive main and subcategories. Key Findings: The total number of behavioral codings for the main categories summarized for all three observed groups was 38 for CLCom, 32 for KCapp, and 35 for AnSimp. As subcategories in the CLCom category, only student difficulties were identified, with the most often coded being fluency in English language communication (10 codings), discourse structure (9 codings), and interruption of communication (5 codings). In the AnSimp category, 31 out of 35 codings were strategy related. Although the strategies varied notably among the observed teams, task management and planning (5 codings), identification of challenge difficulties through variable relationships (5 codings), and visual representation of the challenge and its design (4 codings) stood out. In the KCapp category 28 out of 32 codings evidence provided by the observer pertained to strategies. These included: a holistic approach (4 codings), an understanding of challenging concepts with explanations of previous research (6 codings), and the use of practical resources (4 codings) based on previous student experience Beyond that, six inductive main categories emerged from the observations. The three categories with the most difficulty related codings were "Challenge Concept" (15 codings), including issues with the challenge scope and purpose; "Decision-Making and Priority Setting" (13 codings), characterized by disagreements between ideas; and "Teamwork" (13 codings), marked by unclear roles and low group confidence. General Discussion: In summary, the observational study explored communication difficulties, including problems with English and fluent discussion, along with strategies for analyzing and simplifying problems, such as planning activities and discussing variable relationships. Difficulties related to the scope of the challenge, decision-making and teamwork were also noted, which can be addressed through targeted interventions in CBL. Scientific observation is an effective method for exploratory studies, although this study is limited by the number of observers and resources. Short and consistent observation periods between teams and combining these observations with additional methods (e.g. interviews) to increase the reliability and validity of the results, are recommended for future research. In conclusion, further research is needed on students' difficulties and strategies in analyzing and defining open-ended problems in CBL to design educational interventions and empower them as effective problem solvers for complex sustainable development challenges. References: Detoni, M., Sales, A., Chanin, R., Villwock, L. H., & Santos, A. R. (2019). Using challenge based learning to create an engaging classroom environment to teach software startups. 33rd Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering. Salvador, Brazil. Funke, J. (2019). Problem-Solving. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Funke (Hrsg.), The Psychology of Human Thought. An introduction (S. 155–176). Gallagher, S. & Savage, T. (2020). Challenge based learning in third level education: A literature review, The University of Dublin. Jensen, M. B., Utriainen, T. M., & Steinert, M. (2018). Mapping remote and multidisciplinary learning barriers: Lessons from challenge based innovation at CERN. European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(1), 40–54. Kuckartz, U. & Rädiker, S. (2023). Qualitative content analysis. Methods, practice and software (2nd edition). SAGE. Mourtos, N. (2010). Challenges Students Face when solving Open Ended Problems. International Journal for Engineering Education, S. 1–24. Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L (2011). Key Competencies in Sustainability: A Reference Framework for Academic Program Development. Sustainability Science, 6(2): 203–218.

One of the main features of Challenge-Based Learning (CBL) is that the Challenge Provider (CP) is an actor external to the teaching setting. Often, this actor belongs to a different organisation becoming what we refer to as an external stakeholder. In the context of higher education institutions, we define external stakeholders as organizations whose primary activities occur outside academia but who have interest in the institution's objectives and activities. However, in some cases, the CP may not be a stakeholder but simply an external actor (EA); for instance, a teacher from the same university might propose a challenge related to a personal project. For this reason, we consider the essential requirement for being a CP to be coming from outside the pedagogical setting, acting as a third party separate from both teachers and learners. In this context, our contribution is related to educational initiatives and focuses on the transformation of EAs into CPs within a mandatory CBL course. Over the years, we have noticed that the success of Challenge-Based activities and the quality of student learning are closely linked to how effectively EAs are transformed into CPs. However, on our knowledge, the current literature on CBL does not adequately cover the role of EAs within CBL, even if some valuable contributions can be found. The presence of CPs in CBL courses is fundamental: through the intersection of open and real-world problems and educational activities, CBL can be presented as a pedagogical approach suitable for acquiring the knowledge and skills that are essential for the 21st century. In this poster we present our experiences based on a 6-ECTS mandatory curricular course designed for second-year Master’s students in Computer Science (CS) who are following a curriculum that integrates CS with Innovation and Entrepreneurship (I&E). Since 2017, the course has adopted CBL, and every year involves from 4 to 7 EAs as CPs, and students ranging from 35 to 70. A significant characteristic of this course is the presence of multiple CPs in each edition. In this regard, we observe interesting similarities and differences with the model of multi-CBL presented by Ramírez-Cadena et al. during the 2024 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference. "First contact" with an EA can be challenging to establish. We have defined various strategies to employ when identifying EAs before the course begins. These include: 1) leveraging formal networks of organizations already involved in I&E projects; 2) partnering with local innovation hubs; 3) personal contacts developed through previous collaborations. Additionally, another interesting and feasible strategy (which we have not yet explored) could involve issuing a public call for EAs interested in engaging with the university. In all the cases mentioned above, establishing a trust-based relationship between EAs and teachers is essential, with transparency and completeness of information as its foundation. Therefore, we have created an "information package" that facilitates "first contact". This package is a written presentation that outlines what a CBL course is, how it is structured, the learning objectives, and the staff involved. We also provide information about the profile of the students and the commitment required from them. We specify the types of challenges we are looking for and provide examples. Additionally, we clarify that challenges are not just tasks: each challenge should allow for broad thematic exploration of a specific problem. We also inform the EAs about the potential benefits of participation, as well as the commitments they would need to make. We usually ask the EAs to provide data/contacts, insights and internal perspectives from their organization, to participate in one of the initial course classes (challenges and CPs presentation), in one of the final appointments (oral exam for students), and to engage in some catch-up meetings with students (one meeting every two or three weeks) to ensure that the learning process is rooted in real life. Finally, we provide them with a template (what we call a "challenge descriptor") in which they can describe the challenge with the support of the designated teacher. The EA is required to provide some basic information regarding the name of the organization, the title of the challenge and some keywords that can summarize the problem at stake. Then, there are five important sections to fulfill: - challenge context: students should be able to gain a clear understanding of the EA. The EA should assume it is addressing an audience with minimal prior knowledge about it. To facilitate this, we provide the EA with a set of "guiding questions." - challenge description: students should understand why the EA wants to propose a challenge and, broadly, what the challenge is. The EA is free to express the challenge in any way it prefers, but we consider some elements quite helpful: 2a) clear relevance (challenges should represent "big ideas"); 2b) no obvious single solution (challenges should be open-ended); 2c) a call to action (challenges should prompt students to work on them); - maximum number of teams: the number of teams (4-5 students each) that can choose to deal with a specific challenge during the course (we avoid having more than 2 teams per CP to not overload it); - expected outcomes: some examples are a reflection report, a policy survey, a business analysis, a business model, go-to-market scenarios, an MVP, assess the business potential of a novel technology for application areas and/or markets; - (optional) material for inspiration: websites, articles, books, or any material that could get the students inspired about the challenge. Between the "first contact" and the "challenge description", the EAs undergo a "transformation". In this phase, we frequently interact with them through phone calls, emails, online and in-person meetings. Obtaining a written "challenge description" marks the end of the preparatory phase of each challenge. Through our proposal we aim to show that, ultimately, to reap most of the benefits of CBL, the most essential step that each institution needs to perform is to create a solid process of conversion of external actors to Challenge Providers.

Under conditions of uncertainty, the main task of higher education institutions is to answer the question of how to prepare students with the competencies for life so that they could be active and responsible citizens. Challenge-based learning (CBL) can be seen as a learning approach that helps students develop the skills required to solve the challenges of modern society in the context of uncertainty. At the same time, CBL brings together students, teachers, stakeholders and communities to solve real-life problems and to create a solution that is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable to achieve individual and common well-being. The CBL method at Kaunas University of Technology (KTU) has been applied since 2019. The implementation of this method has become one of the University's strategic goals. To introduce CBL into learning and teaching practice at KTU a CBL ecosystem was developed. The ecosystem of CBL includes the university's strategic vision and priorities, a structured framework for developing the competencies of teachers and other stakeholders, fostering a community of practice, integrating CBL into curricular and extracurricular study modules, and measuring its impact. The impact assessment is essential to ensure that CBL initiatives are effectively enhancing student competencies, fostering innovation, and driving real-world problem-solving skills. By systematically evaluating outcomes, university refines CBL approach, promotes continuous improvement, and demonstrates the tangible benefits of CBL for both academic and professional success. The aim of the practice poster is to share and discuss the CBL ecosystem at KTU, highlighting created values, main challenges, lessons learned, and steps for further development. The poster focuses on several important CBL ecosystems in KTU areas: • University governance: strategic visions and priorities; • Teacher competency development framework and growth of the practice community; • CBL integration: within curricular and extracurricular study modules; Impact assessment: evaluating effects on student competencies, fostering innovation and strengthening engagement with society and communities. The practice poster illustrates how and why the CBL ecosystem has been integrated into the university's strategy at the highest level of governance. It will present KTU’s CBL framework for the teacher competence development and support, including follow-up groups, practice-sharing sessions, mentoring, and the importance communities of practice. Examples of CBL application in concrete curricular and extracurricular study modules will be shared, highlighting lessons learned and best practices. The practise poster invites participants to an active discussion regarding the following questions: • Do other institutions have similar experiences, and how do they implement them? • How could the provided example be applied in other institutions? What opportunities and limitations might arise? • Is it valuable to establish such ecosystems at a regional, national, or even European level? • What prerequisites and preparations are necessary to create these ecosystems and stimulate innovative learning and teaching practices? Who would be responsible for this implementation? • How essential are communities of practice in developing and sustaining such ecosystems? What are effective ways to connect learners, educators, partner universities, and stakeholders at local, regional, and national levels? Expected outcomes: • Feedback from participants to enhance the CBL ecosystem at KTU. • Exchange of experiences and ideas for developing similar ecosystems. • Inspiring participants to systematically rethink teaching and learning practices for responsible education rather than approaching them in a fragmented way.