CBL teachers, are you ready to let go?

CBL teachers, are you ready to let go? Introduction Challenge-Based Learning (CBL) shares key features with other student-centered approaches, emphasizing active engagement, independence, teacher roles as coaches, and viewing knowledge as a tool. CBL offers students autonomy to create, express, and implement ideas while working toward solutions. However, navigating this autonomy isn't entirely self-directed; teachers play a critical, non-traditional role in guiding CBL (Doulougeri et al., 2022; Helker et al., 2024). Vermunt et al. (2017) describe teachers as learning process experts who facilitate self-regulated, collaborative learning. Teacher regulation can either substitute for or activate students' learning goals and behaviors (Vermunt & Vermetten, 2004). Regulation strategies range from highly teacher-regulated to shared or loosely teacher-regulated, with increased student self-regulation required in more loosely structured environments. A balanced approach benefits both students and teachers (Cheon et al., 2020; Vrieling et al., 2018). However, many CBL teachers lack training to adapt to this model, and existing teaching styles often shape their methods (Vermunt & Donche, 2017). Teachers may structure activities to maintain engagement, but those who adopt a process-centered approach encourage student perspectives and initiative, helping students build essential self-regulation skills. Rationale of the workshop This workshop builds on design-based research conducted within CBL courses at TU/e, where researchers and educators co-designed two distinct teacher regulation models and evaluate the impacts on student learnings and teachers' professionalization development. The workshop will share research-based insights on how these teacher regulation approaches affect student learning, enhancing understanding and application in the field. By presenting evidence on the impacts of strong versus shared teacher regulation, this session will offer students, educators and teacher trainers practical experience with "letting go," supported by research findings and on-site exercises and discussions, specifically on several key topics: For the student: •Identifying flexible aspects of teaching that can adapt to student needs (autonomy, relatedness, competence) within a CBL course •Examining its potential impacts on student learning For the teacher: •Understanding the core nature of teacher control in CBL settings •Exploring practical scenarios of "letting go" in teaching For the university: •What does 'letting go' in a course means for the curriculum? Letting go? 60-minutes workshop design 1. Welcome and Intro (15 minutes) •Objective: Set the stage with an overview of teacher regulation in CBL and the importance of balancing autonomy and support for student self-regulation (SRL). •Activities: oWelcome oResearch Presentation: Briefly introduce key findings on the role of teacher regulation in CBL and SRL's importance in fostering autonomy (referencing Vermunt et al., 2017; Doulougeri et al., 2024). oInteractive Poll: Gather participants' initial thoughts on where they currently stand regarding teacher control and flexibility in CBL. Participants are given guiding questions to think about their current teaching practices. Questions may include: "In which areas of CBL do I tend to retain control?" "Where could I allow more student autonomy without compromising learning objectives?" "How do I respond when students struggle with self-regulation?" 2. Designing Individual 'Letting Go' Strategies (30 minutes) •Objective: Allow participants to brainstorm and design personalized "letting go" strategies they can apply to encourage student autonomy. •Activities: oCase Study Presentation: Present a real case study where a teacher in a CBL course gradually reduces control, encouraging students to take charge of their learning. Highlight specific teacher actions and the outcomes for student SRL. oHands-on Strategy Design: Participants draft a specific "letting go" approach for a CBL activity they currently teach or plan to implement. They select one key teaching area (e.g., project planning, resource selection) and outline steps for gradually reducing control to increase student ownership. oPeer Feedback: In pairs, participants share their strategies and offer feedback on each other's approaches, discussing potential challenges and adjustments. 3. Conclusion and Wrap-up (15 minutes) •Objective: Summarize key insights and provide final reflections. •Activities: oGroup Debrief: Facilitated discussion where participants share their reflections on "letting go" and the challenges they foresee in implementing these strategies. Questions may include: "What balance of teacher control and student autonomy feels right for your context?" "How can you ensure that students are adequately supported while still developing SRL skills?" oQ&A: Open floor for any final questions oRecap Key Takeaways: Facilitator summarizes the main points discussed, emphasizing the importance of adaptive teacher regulation in CBL. Expected impacts 1. Equipping Teachers with Adaptive Regulation Strategies Practical Application: Hands-on activities such as designing personalized "letting go" strategies will provide teachers with concrete methods to foster student autonomy while still ensuring support. This balance between guidance and independence in CBL will allow teachers to facilitate a richer, more student-centered learning environment. 2. Building Collaborative and Reflective Learning Communities Fostering Peer Collaboration and Reflection: The workshop's group discussions and case study exploration will encourage teachers to reflect and share insights with peers. This collaborative learning not only reinforces professional growth but also promotes reflective practice, empowering teachers to continuously improve their methods. Selected references Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2020). When teachers learn how to provide classroom structure in an autonomy-supportive way: Benefits to teachers and their students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 90, 103004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103004 Doulougeri, K., Vermunt, J. D., Bombaerts, G., & Bots, M. (2022). Analyzing student-teacher interactions in challenge-based learning. Towards a New Future in Engineering Education, New Scenarios That European Alliances of Tech Universities Open Up, 252–262. https://doi.org/10.5821/conference-9788412322262.1389 Vermunt, J. D., & Donche, V. (2017). A Learning Patterns Perspective on Student Learning in Higher Education: State of the Art and Moving Forward. Educational Psychology Review, 29(2), 269–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9414-6 Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9(3), 257–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00028-0