Presentation "CBL at Master level at TU/e and in EuroTeQ" and Poster pitches

In the context of emerging transdisciplinarity and collaborative learning in higher education, innovative didactical concepts such as challenge-based learning (CBL) have been continuously evolving to equip future professionals for unprecedented challenges. This poster presents a new interactive online toolhttps://challengebasedlearning.ewuu.nl/, specifically designed for developing and designing courses based on challenge-based learning. Within the framework of an alliance (EWUU alliance) comprising four Dutch university institutes, we will delve into the utilization of this tool. The tool serves as an open-access platform that familiarizes users with the vision of CBL, the fundamental elements of educational design, the roles and actors involved in this form of education, and best practices. By using this tool, users have the freedom and flexibility to design, organize, or engage in a CBL challenge from the perspective of various visitor roles. These roles encompass teachers, content experts, competency trainers, policy officers, non-academic stakeholders, and coaches collaborating to facilitate a course. Tailored to the specific role of each user, the tool adapts its utilization and information provision accordingly. This ensures that the tool provides a personalized and responsive experience, catering to the unique requirements and objectives associated with each role. By leveraging competence-based learning, experiential and immersive learning, student-centered learning, social and collaborative learning, and intercultural learning, the tool fosters an enriched educational experience that empowers users to navigate and excel in the realm of challenge-based learning. In a nutshell, this poster introduces the EWUU alliance’s Challenge-Based Learning (CBL) platform, developed to support educators in designing and implementing CBL by providing a repository of knowledge, practical examples, tools, and best practices. The platform addresses the need for accessible, structured resources that facilitate CBL across diverse educational contexts. Highlighting its role as a knowledge hub, this proposal details how the platform advances CBL implementation by enabling educators to leverage innovative designs, share insights, and refine strategies, thereby enhancing CBL’s impact within and beyond the alliance.

The ‘Product Innovation in the Food Industry’ course, offered in the final year of the Master of Science in Bioscience Engineering: Food Science and Nutrition at Ghent University, represents a key interdisciplinary initiative that fosters collaboration between students with different academic backgrounds. Through this course, students from the Bioscience Engineering program work alongside peers from the Master of Science in Business Administration: Commercial Management. Together, they engage in the entire lifecycle of food product development, from concept creation to industrial design and marketing. This course is used as a case to implement the principles of Challenge-Based Learning (CBL) in higher education. The core challenge is the development of innovative, sustainable food products that address pressing societal needs, such as the shift towards plant-based diets and the reduction of environmental impact. By engaging with a practical, industry-relevant task, students experience a learning environment that breaks down traditional academic silos and prepares them for the multifaceted demands of the food industry. The course structure, which brings together students with expertise in food science and business, mirrors real-world industry processes, emphasising the integration of technical, commercial and production aspects. Each team of five students is tasked with developing an innovative food product and is coached by multiple faculty members from different departments. This collaborative framework deepens technical knowledge and reinforces essential soft skills like teamwork, project management and communication. This course aligns closely with the principles of CBL, as illustrated below: 1. Real-World relevance: The challenge presented to the students is grounded in societal and industry needs, focusing on sustainability and the European Green Deal. For instance, students might work on developing protein-rich products that introduce innovative ingredients derived from precision fermentation into the food market. This aligns the course with CBL’s emphasis on using meaningful, authentic challenges to inspire learning. 2. Interdisciplinary collaboration: Reflecting the complexity of real-world innovation, the course fosters interdisciplinary cooperation across faculties. Students from bioscience engineering focus on product development, while business students handle marketing strategies. This cross-functional team setup allows students to see how decisions in one area (e.g. marketing) influence others (e.g. production), echoing CBL’s principle of interconnected learning. 3. Learner ownership and active engagement: In keeping with CBL’s emphasis on learner-driven education, the course encourages students to take ownership of their projects. They are responsible for defining the direction of their product development, from ingredient selection to final product design. The coaches provide guidance but encourage students to explore different approaches, fostering a culture of experimentation, critical thinking, and innovation. 4. Focus on Process and Product: Product development is valued as much as the product itself. The key is to leave room for mistakes during the process and learn from them. 5. Reflection and iteration: Throughout the course, students are encouraged to reflect on their learning processes (via reflection report and peer assessment), iterate on their designs, and learn from failure—critical tenets of the CBL framework. For example, early prototypes of food products are often imperfect or seem not feasible, leading students to refine their formulations based on feedback and interaction with coaches. Rather than purely on the final product, this focus on process emphasises deeper learning and professional growth. 6. Community engagement: The course extends beyond the classroom by involving industry professionals and external stakeholders in different ways, such as participation in the Food@Work Ecotrophelia contest, product pitches, or company visits. This provides students with a broader network of feedback and real-world insights, reflecting CBL’s goal of involving the wider community in the learning process. Challenges and Future Directions Implementing this course in line with CBL principles has not been without challenges. Time constraints are an important and recurring issue, as students must balance the demands of interdisciplinary collaboration with the limited time available for project briefings and concept elaboration. This causes students to jump from the ‘engage’ phase to the ‘act’ phase without thoroughly exploring the investigate phase. Additionally, coordinating the involvement of multiple faculty members from different departments requires careful planning and flexibility. These challenges highlight the need for appreciation of such integrated courses, which focus on interdisciplinary and cooperative learning, which can capitalise on one another's resources and skills and advance knowledge comprehension in the curriculum, which needs to allocate sufficient credits to it and train lecturers in this type of learning environment to embrace CBL methodologies fully. Incorporating the key ideas of CBL into a single integrated course has its limits and challenges. Maintaining the challenge's viability and relevance requires strong engagement with the field, research, and other stakeholders to ensure social significance and adequately address the paired challenges. The interdisciplinary approach has encouraged mutual interest and respect among students from various academic backgrounds. Students report a greater appreciation for the complexity of product innovation and a deeper understanding of how their work fits into the broader context of the food industry. This course also offers valuable opportunities for peer and self-assessment, allowing students to evaluate both their own contributions and those of their teammates. This process further enhances the development of essential soft skills. Ultimately, the course prepares them to act as junior professionals, which is one of the key learning outcomes of the curriculum for the Master's in Bio-Science Engineering: Food Science and Nutrition. Conclusion Product Innovation in the Food Industry exemplifies the potential of Challenge-Based Learning in higher education. The course provides a rich, interdisciplinary learning environment that prepares students for the complexities of real-world product development. Its iterative, reflective nature aligns with CBL’s core principles, emphasising student ownership, collaboration, and engagement with real-world challenges. As the course evolves, efforts will focus on refining the interdisciplinary collaboration process and ensuring that students continue to develop the durable skills necessary for success in the food industry. This poster will share insights into the course’s design, challenges, and lessons learned from applying CBL in an interdisciplinary, real-world context.

Challenges and solutions in multiple stakeholder engagement in CBL Overall relevance to the CBL domain As CBL-driven curricula expands at many universities in Europe, the number of external partners involved also increases. Collaborating with multiple external stakeholders asks for careful thought and organizational efforts to safeguard the (e-)quality of students’ learning, while also achieving desirable results for these partners. Ensuring commitment, alignment of interest and equal engagement of multiple stakeholders in CBL is key, yet it, remains a challenging task for educators and coordinators. Therefore, this research explores the key challenges and solutions to organizing stakeholder engagement in CBL. Theoretical Background and Rationale for the study Especially for entrepreneurial universities, stakeholder engagement in both research and teaching is essential for technology transfer and creating societal impact (Gianoiodis & Meek, 2020). CBL provides an important learning environment where students and stakeholders collaborate on real-world challenges, resulting in impactful outcomes across various social domains and enhancing learning achievements through experiential learning (KohnRadberg et al, 2020, van den Beemt et al, 2023). Stakeholders may include entrepreneurs, technology parks, companies, non-governmental organizations (NGO's), governmental organizations, alumni, and more (Bischoff et al 2018). Active participation of stakeholders in CBL is key (Price et al., 2022). Also, students’ self-directed learning is central in CBL (Leijon et al., 2022) and requires them to collaborate with a diverse group of stakeholders to define challenges, create solutions, and gain feedback throughout the learning process (Gibson et al., 2019; Price et al., 2022). Besides this, stakeholders can also play a role in assessing learning achievements and outcomes (Pittaway et al, 2009). Given this variety, stakeholders may differ in their backgrounds, interest, level of engagement, and perceptions of their importance to the learning process versus outcomes (Bischoff et al, 2018). In this context, Price et al. (2022) stress the importance of expectation management in CBL, since the result of the course may not always yield positive results for industry partners. Hence, tensions between achieving learning objectives and presenting accessible, useful solutions to industry partners may easily occur. Consequently, as the number of CBL courses expands, challenges related to coordination and expectation management are likely to arise. Although previous research has examined the benefits of industry partnerships in CBL (Price et al., 2022) and highlighted the challenges of engaging multiple stakeholders (Price et al., 2022, Bischof et al, 2018), there is limited understanding of alignment and organizational challenges such as expectation management, preparation for education, and planning for multiple stakeholder engagement in CBL, prior to and during the learning process. Hence, our research question: What are the alignment and organizational challenges of engaging multiple stakeholders in CBL courses, and how can these challenges be successfully resolved? Research Methodology and Design To examine these challenges and solutions, we apply qualitative research methods. First, we organize a World Café session as part of a workshop at the University of Twente in the Netherlands in January 2025 Following this, we conduct in–depth interviews and focus groups. Our key informants throughout all stages of data collection include stakeholders experienced with HEI education, students, CBL-experienced teachers and educational/policy experts of the University of Twente. The purpose of the World Café session is twofold. In the first phase, we explore the various demands of each target group and how to balance expectations. In the second phase, we discuss potential solutions to the challenges with all participants. The emerging insights can inform responsible educational designs for engaging multiple stakeholders in CBL which are verified and refined through in-depth interviews and focus groups selected research participants. Thirdly, the solutions will be translated into practical tools and tested in a CBL course involving multiple stakeholders at the University of Twente. Results and Findings We expect the following results: First, a clear overview of the alignment and organizational challenges, structured by their impact on learning quality and outcomes—ranging from low to high impact. Second, we aim to develop a concept proven tool that helps educators and coordinators in overcoming and anticipating these challenges in each phase of the learning process, including the selection of stakeholders. Educational Impact With this research, we create the following impact. First, we close the gap between theory and practice in the alignment and organizational challenges of multiple stakeholder engagement in CBL. Second, we offer an evidence-based toolbox to help ensure the interest of multiple stakeholders in terms of the quality of learning outcomes. References Bischoff, K., Volkmann, C. K., & Audretsch, D. B. (2018). Stakeholder collaboration in entrepreneurship education: an analysis of the entrepreneurial ecosystems of European higher educational institutions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 20-46. Crocco, E., Giacosa, E., & Culasso, F. (2022). Stakeholder engagement in higher education: State of the art and research agenda. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. Gianiodis, P. T., & Meek, W. R. (2020). Entrepreneurial education for the entrepreneurial university: a stakeholder perspective. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45(4), 1167-1195. Gibson, M. (2019). Crafting communities of practice: the relationship between making and learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29, 25-35. KohnRådberg, K., Lundqvist, U., Malmqvist, J., & HagvallSvensson, O. (2020). FromCDIO tochallenge-basedlearningexperiences–expandingstudent learningas well as societalimpact?.European Journal of Engineering Education,45(1), 22-37. Leijon, M., Gudmundsson, P., Staaf, P., & Christersson, C. (2022). Challenge based learning in higher education–A systematic literature review. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 59(5), 609-618. Pittaway, L., Hannon, P., Gibb, A., & Thompson, J. (2009). Assessment practice in enterprise education. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 15(1), 71-93. Price, L., Michel-Villarreal, R., Pimanava, H., & Ge, C. (2022). Implementing CBL in HEI Curricula: Challenges and Opportunities for Industry Partners. The Emerald Handbook of Challenge Based Learning, 345-361. van den Beemt, A., van de Watering, G., & Bots, M. (2023). Conceptualising variety in challenge-based learning in higher education: the CBL-compass. European Journal of Engineering Education, 48(1), 24-41.

Learning Together in CBL is a research project aimed at studying the epistemological perspectives of students, teachers and stakeholders in a collaborative process in challenge based learning. Epistemic perspectives encompass views on the nature of knowledge, the reliability of sources of information, the role of evidence and experimentation, and the level of certainty or uncertainty inherent in a given body of knowledge. Our findings highlight that epistemic beliefs, are crucial for engineering students who often perceive values as unrelated to their field. Hence, epistemic perspectives form the basis for understanding and teaching societal transformation. Understanding how and what engineers know, and how they act on that knowledge, has a profound impact on society (Kant & Kerr, 2019), this epistemological development is needed in order to solve complicated moral and social dilemmas (Han & Jeong, 2014). Hence the importance of understanding and shaping the epistemological beliefs of engineering educators and students, as these beliefs both influence the design of engineering classes as well as the development of future engineers (Ghazali et al., 2021). This research poster will give an overview of our two year research project outlining our interdisciplinary approach of philosophy and educational sciences to gain a better understanding of students' epistemic beliefs, thereby informing the development of skills and competencies students need to develop to address complex societal challenges. Background: Professional engineers need to possess skills of critical thinking, where they are able to interpret data from different sources, to make decisions supported by evidence, and to recognize that knowledge is context dependent. To develop this level of thinking, or in other words, sophisticated beliefs contrary to naïve beliefs, the curriculum needs to be designed in a way that helps their engineering ways of thinking to broaden up as they progress through the curriculum. The strength of CBL is that it has the potential to confront students with real life cases and the associated complexity, uncertainty and compromise required to develop such skills (Bombaerts, 2021; Bombaerts & Doulougeri, 2019; Bombaerts & Martin, 2019). The process of solving a real life challenge should confront students employing “absolute knowing” approaches that assume single, constant correct answers and require them to develop “contextual knowing” strategies. This should particularly be the case if the stakeholders and teachers stimulate the contextual knowing approach by being an exemplar themselves and make developing students’ epistemic perspective an explicit goal (Bombaerts et al., 2022; Doulougeri et al., 2022). The project is organized into three phases: 1 Analysis of instruments available to measure epistemic beliefs Assessment of epistemological beliefs in engineering education is crucial for understanding students' perspectives on knowledge and learning. To successfully carry out such an assessment, we need validated reliable psychometric tools. In this part of the project, we carried a systematic literature review on existing instruments utilized to assess epistemological beliefs. Guided by the question "What existing instruments are designed to measure or characterize epistemological beliefs in engineering?" Our systematic review revealed a lack of conceptually coherent and empirically robust tools for assessing epistemological beliefs specific to engineering contexts. This gap underscores the need for tailored instruments that capture the nuances of epistemic development within CBL environments. 2 Epistemic tensions in CBL context This part of the project is an empirical exploration of understanding epistemic tensions encountered by student teams, educators, and stakeholders within a challenge based learning (CBL) environment through answering the question: How do students teams negotiate a common epistemological stance as they interact with other actors in the learning environment? Through a series of classroom observations, we encountered instances of epistemic tension within student groups and between groups and teaching teams. To progress with their projects and settle some decisions, these tensions necessitated resolution, often through negotiation, mutual understanding, or decision making strategies that unveil evolving epistemological perspectives. The results revealed that resolving epistemic tensions, such as differing perspectives on knowledge validity, requires negotiation and adaptation among student teams. This process provides insights into how epistemological beliefs evolve within CBL settings, often showing context dependent variability. 3 Establishing a tool to measure epistemic beliefs We are developing an assessment tool for eliciting students’ epistemic beliefs. The tool consists of an introduction lecture on the topic, followed by a quantitative survey, and lastly, a series of written reflection questions to help the students reflect on their epistemological beliefs. The piloting of the tool will take place in the engineering ethics newly developed course and first data collection round will take place in the Decisions Under Risk and Uncertainty course. Those courses were chosen as the content readily covers the topic of social responsibility, enabling us to understand the possible relation between students epistemic beliefs and their perception of their social responsibility. Future steps involve applying the tool across diverse contexts, comparing epistemological beliefs in CBL versus traditional classes, and across disciplines. These comparisons will provide critical insights into the effectiveness of CBL in fostering adaptive, context sensitive epistemic perspectives in engineering education. References: Bombaerts, G. (2021). Challenge based learning to improve the quality of engineering ethics education. Bombaerts, G., & Doulougeri, K. (2019). Addressing different needs of first year engineering students in a course of Ethics and History of Technology. Bombaerts, G., Kovacs, H., Martin, D., & Tormey, R. (2022). How can you contribute to the social responsibility of your university’s education? Bombaerts, G., & Martin, D. A. (2019). Case studies in engineering ethics education. Doulougeri, K. I., Vermunt, J. D., Bombaerts, G., & Bots, M. (2022). Analyzing student teacher interactions in challenge based learning. Ghazali, N. E., Bakar, Z. A., Shafie Bakar, M., Busu, M., & Rahman, N. (2021). Epistemology in Engineering Education: An Overview. Han, H., & Jeong, C. (2014). Improving Epistemological Beliefs and Moral Judgment Through an STS-Based Science Ethics Education Program. Kant, V., & Kerr, E. (2019). Taking Stock of Engineering Epistemology: Multidisciplinary Perspectives.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE The relatively recent introduction of Challenge Based Learning (CBL) approaches (Gallagher & Savage, 2023) shows promise in providing authentic problems (Stanton & McCaffrey, 2010) within the context of authentic learning environments (ALEs). In authentic learning environments (ALEs) learners work on and learn from ill defined problems, while they receive guidance from facilitators. Authentic problems offer ample opportunities for students to learn new insights and to reflect on their own actions (Herrington & Herrington, 2006). Unlike traditional case based learning, which often simplifies professional tasks, ALEs offer authentic, multifaceted assignments where students collaborate with professionals and deal with uncertainty, diversity of outcomes, and varying learning pathways. Research shows that learning in ALEs, with real world challenges, leads to deeper understanding and better professional preparation compared to traditional educational methods (e.g. Hmelo Silveret al., 2006), because they help students develop problem solving and collaboration skills that are needed to solve practical challenges (Kolmos & Egelund Holgaar, 2017). At the same time real life work situations help students develop career related self awareness by providing them with insights into their strengths, interests, and professional aspirations (Kuijpers & Meijers, 2012). Given the current societal transformation(s), professionals need in depth field specific expertise and skills such as critical thinking, collaboration, and self directed learning (e.g., Pyrhonen et al,, 2019; World Economic Forum, 2018; Hughes et al., 2017). Concurrently students are becoming more discerning and conscious of their educational needs and its alignment to their own situation (e.g., Pyrhonen et al., 2019; Wade, 1994). Developing education that supports the required skills and addresses students’ needs is challenging. It requires rich learning environments in which students experience (some) flexibility and autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Within such learning environments students can become self aware and self directed learners. However, shaping authentic learning environments that incorporate authentic challenges require co creation between workfield professionals and teachers. Our project was set out to develop design principles that support the co creation process. PROJECT DESIGN AND RESULTS Our project TALENTS at Saxion University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands aimed to create authentic learning environments in (re)new(ed) curricula. A main aspect of this project was to develop support for design processes. Design principles play a major role in educational design, since they (help to) guide the design process by offering evidence informed insights for one of more design activities (e.g. Van den Akker, 1999). For creating the design principles an iterative approach was applied, in which input from various groups (e.g., researchers; educational experts, students, professionals) and research activities were combined. For organizing the design principles, the CADDIE model (Visscher Voerman et al., 2024) was used. CADDIE builds on the ADDIE model by including the socio professional perspective to the design model (Goodlad et al., 1979). Nine design activities were identified. The first activity, for example, is “Design team formation and development.” An example of a design principle for team formation is: If you want students to develop into self aware professionals with self directed skills within authentic learning environments, it is important that… at the start of the design process, you carefully assemble a design team that fits the intended innovation, consisting of capable individuals who are willing to change and are accepted by their colleagues.... where you assemble an interdisciplinary team consisting of various stakeholders: teachers, industry partners, students, and colleagues from educational logistics.... because when all perspectives are represented during the design process, the likelihood of the education being feasible increases. [1]. RELEVANCE AND IMPACT Recent CBL reviews underline the key characteristics of quality challenges. However, there is little attention given what it takes to successfully implement CBL in curricula. The results of our project aim to support CBL designers in the overall design and implementation process. Design principles aim to support educational designers in making underpinned decisions (Kali et al., 2019). The design principles of our study are the result of a four year project, which started during the COVID 19 pandemic. The pandemic created challenges in teacher availability and restricted creativity during unavoidable online design sessions. Nevertheless, we successfully developed design principles that allow designers to adapt them to their specific needs. At the final stages of TALENTs, the design principles were finetuned by the project team and discussed with various stakeholders (e.g., researchers, teachers, educational designers). This final activity makes the design principles applicable for the design of CBE and ALEs in various contexts. REFERENCES 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 Goodlad, J. I., Klein, M. F., & Tye, K. A. (1979). The domains of curriculum and their study. In J. I. Goodlad (Ed.), Curriculum Inquiry (pp. 43 76). McGraw Hill. Hmelo Silver, C. E., Golan Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99 107. Hughes, D., Law, B., & Meijers, F. (2017). New school for the old school: Career guidance and counselling in education. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 45(2), 133 137. Kali, Y., Levin Peled, R., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). The role of design principles in designing courses that promote collaborative learning in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 1067 1078. Kuijpers, M., & Meijers, F. (2012). Learning for now or later? Career competencies among students in higher vocational education in the Netherlands. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 449 467. McKenney, S. E., & Reeves, T. C. (2018). Conducting educational design research (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Pyrhonen, V. P., Niiranen, S., & Pajarre, E. (2019). Engineering graduates’ development of competencies: Views from academic stakeholders. Paper presented at the 47th annual conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), 16 19 September, Budapest, Hungary. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68 78. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003 066X.55.1.68 Stanton, M., & McCaffrey, M.

Extended abstract In today's rapidly evolving world, societies face complex challenges that span environmental, social, and economic dimensions, as framed by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UNESCO, 2020). These global goals provide a framework for addressing urgent sustainability issues, and education plays a critical role in preparing students to contribute meaningfully to these efforts. Particularly in secondary education, there is growing recognition that traditional, siloed approaches are insufficient for equipping students with the skills needed to tackle these real-world problems. By confronting students with the complexity of sustainability early on, they can develop critical competencies such as systems thinking, collaboration, creativity, and problem-solving, which are essential for navigating the uncertainties of the future and building a more sustainable society. One way of addressing these skills is through interdisciplinary education (McPhail, 2018; Tonnetti & Lentillon-Kaestner, 2023). That is, sustainability issues such as climate change, resource depletion, and social inequality are not confined to a single discipline but require solutions that integrate knowledge and skills from multiple fields (Thibaout et al., 2018). Interdisciplinarity has been widely recognized as a valuable mechanism for education for sustainable development (ESD) (Liu et al., 2022; Weinberg & McMeeking, 2017). One approach that answers the call for interdisciplinary education for addressing the complex and global issues we currently face, is Challenge-based learning (CBL). CBL is an interdisciplinary approach designed to tackle complex global issues by integrating traditional education with real-world problems, with a core focus on taking action (Johnson & Adams, 2011). These problems require creative, innovative, and collaborative solutions involving students, teachers, and external stakeholders (Sukacké et al., 2022). While the benefits of interdisciplinarity in addressing global challenges in the context of ESD are widely acknowledged, its integration in secondary education remains limited (Tonnetti & Lentillon-Kaestner 2023). Poorly implemented interdisciplinarity can result in fragmented learning, knowledge gaps, and difficulties in managing the breadth of information students receive (McPhail, 2018; Tonnetti & Lentillon-Kaestner, 2023). Several factors contribute to these limitations, including (1) the highly discipline-based structure of schools, which necessitates significant curriculum changes (Weinberg & McMeeking, 2017), (2) teachers’ reluctance to teach outside their expertise (Tonnetti & Lentillon-Kaestner, 2023), and (3) the logistical challenges and time-consuming nature of preparing interdisciplinary lessons, compounded by insufficient support from school leadership (Tonnetti & Lentillon-Kaestner, 2023). To overcome interdisciplinary obstacles, educational systems require fundamental changes to integrate ESD fully (Taylor et al., 2019). In the Netherlands, schools have autonomy to include ESD, but it's not mandatory, leading to small-scale, teacher-driven innovations that face challenges in broader integration within the existing educational framework (de Wolf & de Hamer, 2015). Despite the well-recognized benefits of interdisciplinarity in CBL and ESD for addressing complex real-world problems, and the acknowledged obstacles posed by the current structure of secondary education, there is limited research on how teachers navigate these barriers to implement interdisciplinary CBL for ESD in secondary education. This study aims to map the pathways teachers take in overcoming these obstacles and how they approach interdisciplinary education through CBL. A qualitative approach was employed, utilizing document analysis and semi-structured interviews for data collection. Document analysis involved reviewing curriculum documents, including learning objectives, lesson activities, and formal and informal assessments, such as rubrics and formative evaluations throughout the CBL project. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to gather rich, in-depth information on teachers' CBL projects and their approach to interdisciplinary teaching. The combination of these methods allowed for triangulation of the data, offering a comprehensive understanding of how interdisciplinary teaching is implemented and reflected in current CBL for ESD practices. The findings of this study will provide valuable insights into how teachers navigate interdisciplinary boundaries, contributing to a deeper understanding of how CBL can be effectively integrated into secondary education to support ESD. This includes practical recommendations for designing interdisciplinary curricula, fostering collaboration among teachers from different disciplines, and more effectively integrating sustainability themes into lessons. Additionally, this study could serve as a starting point for schools to reform curriculum structures to promote interdisciplinarity in secondary education by, for example, allowing for greater flexibility in the curriculum to accommodate interdisciplinary CBL projects that address real-world sustainability issues. Future research could build on these findings by exploring the role of external stakeholders, such as industry and community organizations, in supporting interdisciplinary education for sustainable development, providing further insights into the effectiveness of CBL. References de Wolf, M., de Hamer, A. (2015). Education for Sustainable Development in the Netherlands. In: Jucker, R., Mathar, R. (eds) Schooling for Sustainable Development in Europe. Schooling for Sustainable Development, vol 6. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09549-3_20 Johnson, L., & S. Adams (2011) Challenge based learning: The report from the Implementation Project. The New Media Consortium. Liu, J., Watabe, Y. & Goto, T. (2022). Integrating sustainability themes for enhancing interdisciplinarity: a case study of comprehensive research university in Japan. Asia Pacific Education Review 23, 695-710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-022-09788-z McPhail, G. (2017). Curriculum integration in the senior secondary school: a case study in a national assessment context. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(1), 56–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2017.1386234 Sukacké, V., Guerra, A.O.P.d.C., Ellinger, D., Carlos, V., Petroniené, S., Gaižiūnienė, L., Blanch, S., Marbà-Tallada, A., & Brose, A. (2022). Towards active evidence-based learning in engineering education. A systematic literature review of PBL, PjBL, and CBL. Sustainability, 14(21). 13955. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113955 Taylor, N., Quinn, F., Jenkins, K., Miller-Brown, H., Rizk, N., Prodromou, T., Serow, P., & Taylor, S. (2019). Education for sustainability in the secondary sector - A review. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 13(1), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408219846675 Tonnetti, B., & Lentillon-Kaestner, V. (2023). Teaching interdisciplinarity in secondary school: A systematic review. Cogent Education, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2216038 UNESCO. (2020). Education for sustainable development: A roadmap. https://doi.org/10.54675/YFRE1448 Weinberg, A. E., & McMeeking, L. B. S. (2017). Toward meaningful interdisciplinary education: High school teachers’ views of mathematics and science integration. School Science and Mathematics, 117(5), 204-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12224

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.

Challenge-Based Learning: Factors Contributing to Student Succes Challenge-Based Learning (CBL) in higher education provides students with an educational approach that links academic concepts to real-world problems, fostering critical thinking, creativity, and teamwork. By engaging students in meaningful, open-ended challenges, CBL enhances motivation and encourages self-directed learning, enabling students to take ownership of their education. This approach not only prepares students with the practical skills necessary for their future careers but also builds adaptability and resilience. Through CBL, educators equip students with a well-rounded skill set that’s essential in today’s rapidly changing world. This case study explores the student experience in an elective course at Tilburg University (TiU), focusing on factors that facilitate or hinder successful mastering of learning outcomes. What challenges do students face, and how can they be supported? Data was collected through student surveys and semi-structured interviews to identify key success factors in the course design and activities. The course The course prepares students by deepening their understanding of the complex societal contexts in which they will operate and by honing essential professional skills, such as environmental awareness, data analysis, and design thinking. These competencies are increasingly important as societal challenges are poised to impact future business practices. By developing sensitivity to these issues, students are better positioned to act ethically and thoroughly in their future professions. The design of the course includes weekly workshops, during which guest lecturers introduce relevant theories and methods to address complex issues. These workshops provide students with just-in-time information to apply to their projects, while also offering structured opportunities for collaborative problem-solving. Over a 15-week period, students analyze societal dynamics surrounding complex challenges and create evidence-based plans that contribute to societal transitions. Student experience The following factors were identified as significant for the learning experience of students: - Group Dynamics: The motivation of individual group members—both in terms of selecting this elective and their intrinsic commitment to the challenge—profoundly affects group dynamics and project progress. - Prerequisite Skills from Main Studies: Variations in research skills across disciplines can create confusion about course expectations. In groups where members come from different academic programs, there is a risk that one perspective may dominate, marginalizing others. - Balance Between Freedom and Guidance: Depending on their level of motivation, students may struggle with too much freedom. Many students noted that deadlines helped create a sense of urgency, encouraging them to prioritize the project alongside other coursework and avoid procrastination. - Just-in-Time Information through Workshops: Students occasionally found it difficult to see the relevance of certain topics or guest lectures to their specific challenge. In some cases, the timing of these topics was too late in the course to serve as a useful foundation for the writing process. - Stakeholder Relationships: While stakeholders had been pre-briefed about the course, students often lacked the instinct to effectively gather non-academic insights from these external parties. This study highlights the importance of addressing these factors to enhance the overall learning experience and success of students in challenge-based learning environments and will make several concrete suggestions on how to approach this.