Student Perspectives on Challenge-Based Learning: A Qualitative Evaluation Through Structured Reflections

Research Paper Recommended citation: Griech, B., Verevkina, V., & Varney, V. (2025). Student Perspectives on Challenge-Based Learning: A Qualitative Evaluation Through Structured Reflections. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631919. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. STUDENT PERSPECTIVES ON CHALLENGE-BASED LEARNING: A QUALITATIVE EVALUATION THROUGH STRUCTURED REFLECTIONS B. Griech a,1,V. Verevkina b, V. Varney c a TH Köln University of Applied Sciences, Cologne, Germany, 0009-0006-4613-0371 b TH Köln University of Applied Sciences Cologne, Germany, 0009-0009-7355-8500 c TH Köln University of Applied Sciences, Cologne, Germany, 0000-0002-6252-7217 Conference Key Areas: Engineering skills, professional skills, and transversal skills, Curriculum development and emerging curriculum models in engineering Keywords: Challenge-Based Learning, Engineering Education, Reflection, SkillDevelopment ABSTRACT Challenge-Based Learning (CBL) offers a structured framework for fostering student engagement, creativity, and interdisciplinary collaboration through real-world problem-solving. This paper presents a Challenge-Based Learning approach implemented in the course Innovation Management within the master's programs Mechanical Engineering – Smart Systems and Green Building Engineering at TH Köln – University of Applied Sciences. Addressing the increasing demand for solution-oriented, project-based learning formats in engineering education, the course is designed to enable students to engage with complex, interdisciplinary challenges – reaching from user centered innovation in sustainable infrastructure designs to culturally sensitive solutions at the intersection of development cooperation and social innovation. As part of an ongoing practice-based inquiry, this paper illustrates how students engage with CBL in an applied context. A didactical pattern of the implemented and proven CBL approach was deducted from over four semesters of teaching practice. The practical insights are supported by qualitative results from reflection sessions during each semester. These reflections, collected over four semesters, were documented and qualitatively coded and analyzed to identify recurring themes and patterns. The aim of this paper is to share insights from the implementation and evaluation of the CBL approach and to outline its transfer potential for other learning contexts in engineering education as a hands-on approach for the development of future skills. 1 Corresponding Author B. Griech [email protected] 1 INTRODUCTION: RESPONSIBLE ENGINEERING EDUCATION Current developments in society, politics and the economy confront engineering graduates with a variety of challenges that are characterized by their complexity, dynamism and unpredictability (Kamp, 2023). The far reaching challenges of the VUCA world, characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity, call for a generation of engineers who are not only technically qualified, but are also able to work across disciplines, think creatively and are ready to take responsibility for creating sustainable solutions involving different actors of society (Ciolacu et al., 2023). Therefore, it has become crucial to develop competences that go beyond the traditional responsibilities and tasks typically associated with the work of engineers (Hadgraft & Kolmos, 2020). In response to these increasing demands, many universities are designing their curricula to be more learner-centered and flexible, thereby enabling students to effectively address the challenges presented by a constantly changing and uncertain global landscape (van den Beemt et al., 2023). Against this background universities are confronted with the need to foster the development of future-oriented competences, known as Future Skills within the German higher education landscape (Ehlers, 2020) and create experiential learning environments to educate engineers who are able to handle complex challenges and make a meaningful contribution to societal progress. At the same time digitalization and the exponential development of technologies require a new qualification profile of graduates that includes future-oriented skills and which is geared towards specialized, digitalized and global working environments and their constant increase (Kuper, 2020). Universities therefore face the challenge of not only having to prepare their students for responsible professional lives but also enabling them to play an active role in the transformation processes of a globally networked and sustainable society (Beagon et al., 2023). This requires a competence-oriented learning environment in which students can acquire and further develop the relevant employability skills (Dlouhá et al., 2019; Redman & Wiek, 2021). In this context, Challenge-Based Learning represents a student-centered and competence-oriented approach in which learners actively participate in identifying, analyzing and solving multidisciplinary and collaborative problems by being involved in real-life scenarios and in practical collaboration with stakeholders from different areas at local and international levels (Dikilitaş et al., 2025; Leles et al., 2024). In this learning setting, students are given the opportunity to apply their technical expertise in combination with interdisciplinary skills in real-life contexts. They are tasked with independently developing a solution that is then implemented through the construction process of a prototype. This hands-on, applied approach allows students to not only draw upon their technical knowledge, but also to integrate and apply a diverse set of interdisciplinary competencies to tackle complex, real-world challenges. By being actively involved in the entire problemsolving process, from ideation to implementation, students gain valuable experience in navigating the practical realities and constraints associated with engineering projects (Huesca et al., 2024). Research has shown that exposing students to real-world challenges and engaging them in collaborative projects with diverse stakeholders in local context as well as in global contexts can enhance their awareness of social and ethical considerations while reinforcing their education and professional engagement within a global society (Ortiz-Marcos et al., 2020). In the context of engineering education, the importance of providing students with practical opportunities to develop these skills and acquire relevant knowledge cannot be emphasized enough, since employers from industry demand a high performance in interdisciplinary skills. As part of university-intern as well as nationwide challenge formats, such as the Engineers without Borders Challenge (Ingenieure ohne Grenzen e.V.) and Engineering Design Challenges, students work in project teams guided and coached by teaching staff on developing a solution to one or more identified problems that arise from a real-world social challenge. In previous challenge formats, the students at TH Köln – University of Applied Sciences have developed a range of prototypes like small robots, experiment kits for primary school kids in Uganda, remote labs for universities and urine-diverting dry toilets for families in Sierra Leone. At TH Köln – University of Applied Sciences, significant emphasis is placed on integrating research, teaching, and practice to generate social innovation in transdisciplinary contexts. In alignment with this institutional focus, the authors seek to involve students in a co-creative process for the continuous development of innovative teaching concepts, such as Challenge-Based Learning. This approach follows the principles of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, where the teaching team engages in a continuous cycle of reflection on course design and implementation while closely considering students' experiences. Since student perspectives are typically collected through standardized evaluation forms, this research aims to complement these assessments by offering a qualitative exploration of students' personal experiences within the Challenge-Based Learning framework, providing deeper insights into their learning processes and perspectives (Griech & Varney, 2024a, 2024b). 2 CONTEXT AND BEST PRACTICE AT TH KÖLN – UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES 2.1 Challenge-Based Learning As a pedagogical response to the demands of the modern work environment in the engineering sector, Challenge-Based Learning is gaining increasing prominence in higher education. A range of distinguished universities are already incorporating CBL strategically into new academic programs in the field of engineering education. Their goal is to prepare future engineers who are able to think in complex systems, engage with societal and industrial stakeholders, test ideas in real-world contexts, handle failure as part of the learning process, and act with an entrepreneurial mindset (Helker et al., 2024; Lehtonen et al., 2023; Leijon et al., 2022; MembrilloHernández et al., 2021). By working on open-ended, real-life challenges, students take charge of their own learning process, recognizing the necessity of acquiring essential skills such as adaptability, teamwork, and transdisciplinary problem-solving (Helker et al., 2024). Moreover, CBL shifts the focus from merely solving a problem to understanding, defining and addressing it while working towards a solution (van den Beemt et al., 2023). This approach not only engages students on multiple cognitive levels but also fosters a creative mindset, integrates real societal goals, and highlights the complexities of genuine innovation at every stage of the process. The growing popularity of the CBL approach has contributed to an expansion of research in this area. Current studies explore topics such as the role and perspectives of educators in CBL, the behavior of students participating in CBL courses, changes in their perceptions of the challenges, their motivation, and students’ understanding of their education, as well as the various factors influencing their academic progress (Doulougeri et al., 2024; Gutiérrez-Martínez et al., 2021; Kohn Rådberg et al., 2020). While CBL is a widely recognized concept, its implementation in engineering education curricula varies considerably (Doulougeri et al., 2024).Against this background, the aim of this paper is to present a proven course design with an implemented CBL approach with a strong focus on usercentered design and creative openness in the field of mechanical engineering at TH Köln – University of Applied Sciences. Additionally, the paper showcases how structured student reflections are used to actively engage learners in the course process and generate qualitative research data on Challenge-Based Learning in practice. 2.2 A CBL approach in the course Innovation Management The masters’ module Innovation Management is a compulsory course with 5 ECTS, offered in both study programs Mechanical Engineering – Smart Systems and Green Building Engineering. It includes a workload of 30 hours of lecture and 120 hours of project work. The implemented CBL format is structured into three phases: 1. Introduction to the challenge, teambuilding and theoretical principles At the beginning of each semester, students are introduced to the current challenge at a kick-off meeting and are given an insight into the topic and task which has been pre-designed by the teaching team in alignment with current technological trends and global societal challenges. The challenge is intentionally open in terms of the scope and assessment criteria in order to encourage students to find new ways of solving problems that go beyond the traditional conventions of their discipline. Theoretical principles on the range and characteristics of innovations as well as analyzing and designing innovation systems are introduced in two lecture sessions with the inclusion of guest lectures by experts from the industry. In this first phase, the project teams are also formed according to a criteria-based procedure asking students to find themselves together in teams of 5 persons by ensuring that the groups are as heterogeneous as possible and that there is a balanced ratio of both study programs represented. The students assign themselves to one of three important characteristics for successful innovation teams in advance: creativity, curiosity and prudence. These criteria were previously introduced into class by an external industry expert, Timon Vielhaber (World of VR), drawing on his professional experience working with interdisciplinary innovation teams. They have since been integrated into the course design and are supported by recent findings in team innovation research (Cucuzzella, 2009; Walsh et al., 2022). In the final team composition, all three characteristics should be represented. To facilitate the process of team building at the beginning of the semester, the teaching team organizes teambuilding activities such as the ‘marshmallow challenge’ and partner interviews with the students as part of the kick-off meeting and the first lecture. 2. Method labs The second phase of the course aims to provide students with the methods and skills they need to initiate creativity processes and apply user-centered approaches to innovation development while designing a prototype. For this phase, a total of three method labs are conducted on the topics of creativity techniques, usercentered design approaches and prototyping. Students are introduced to a variety of creativity techniques, including quiet techniques (e.g. brainwriting, 6-3-5 method, SCAMPER), loud techniques (e.g. brainstorming, Osborne method), and discursive techniques (e.g. Walt Disney method, Six Thinking Hats and Headstand Method). These methods are selected to cover a wide range of thinking styles encouraging students to shift perspectives and move out of their comfort zone. Furthermore, user-centered design methods such as persona creation (e.g. based on user interviews or secondary research), user journey mapping (identifying touchpoints, emotions, and needs along the experience path), and rapid prototyping are presented and directly applied by the students in the context of their own challenge projects. This direct transfer of method to practice allows for experiential learning and immediate feedback on the applicability and usefulness of each tool in solving real-world problems. Each method lab consists of a 30-minute introduction to the method and a 60-minute exercise in which the method is tried out and reflected on by the students along the use case. 3. Project phase and assessment In the third phase, the student groups are given a total of five weeks to work autonomously on their project ideas and to test and iteratively develop their prototypes according to the needs and expectations of relevant target groups. For the construction of the prototype, each project team receives a budget of 50 to 70 euros, with which they must strategically plan and calculate. As an essential accompanying element of this phase, an interim presentation as well as a feedback and reflection session will be implemented at which the project teams will reflect on their group work process and discuss the challenges, successes and lessons learnt as part of the challenge guided by the teaching staff. The results of the project work will be documented by each group as a report, in which the creative process in the team and the reflection on the team-working process are explained transparently. Finally, the students present their final product as part of an oral examination in a 10-minute project pitch and exhibit their prototypes for assessment and testing. The assessment is carried out by the teaching team and an interdisciplinary jury made up of representatives from industry and cooperating universities. The winning team's project idea is usually awarded a prize and, depending on the topic and format of the challenge, its prototype will be further developed by cooperation reaching the realization of the concept. 3 RESEARCH INSIGHTS 3.1 Qualitative analysis of reflection sessions As a part of accompanying research on the implementation of the Challenge-Based Learning approach in the course Innovation Management, the teaching team evaluated the feedback and reflections from students collected within reflection sessions of four semesters, identifying common patterns and topics, which the students mentioned repeatedly. During a reflection session held in the middle of the project phase, student project teams discussed six different questions in the form of a gallery walk involving all participating students: 1) What was our highlight? 2) What motivated us? 3) What did we do well? 4) Where did we fail? 5) What was the biggest learning? 6) What would we do differently next time? For each question, the students' experiences were summarized on meta cards and collected on the poster. Afterwards, all the posters were presented by one group at a time and individual aspects were discussed and explored in further depth. Each cohort consisted of approximately 40 to 50 students per semester. For the evaluation of the reflections of 4 semesters in the period of summer term 2023 until winter term 2024/25 the contents of the posters were digitalized and coded with the software MAXQDA. The data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis following the approach of Mayring (Mayring, 2022) which combines a structured category system with openness for inductive insights. While the main categories were created deductively based on the structured reflection questions, the subcategories emerged from the inductive analysis of the students’ answers to the predefined questions by the teaching team. Due to the type of data, which encompasses only short keywordbased group reflections, the analysis was intentionally restricted to descriptive coding frequencies. The written input did not provide a detailed enough narrative to enable a more nuanced qualitative interpretation. Instead, the analysis aimed to reveal common themes and patterns in students' experiences across semesters, rather than reconstructing their individual meaning-making processes. 3.2 Results The results of the qualitative content analysis map recurring patterns within the categories derived from the guiding questions of the reflection session. Overall, the most frequently referenced category was “Successes”, with teamwork emerging as the dominant subcategory with 40 coded mentions. This indicates that students strongly associate their sense of accomplishment with effective collaboration and group cohesion. Other subcategories within “Successes” like concept development (n=20) and personal contribution (n=10) suggest that students value the collective progress as well as their individual engagement, although the emphasis remains clearly on the team experience. Closely following was the category of motivation, where students highlighted the implementation of the prototype (n=20), learning process (n=20), and competition (n=18) as central factors for their motivation through the challenge. These responses reflect a balanced mix of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The opportunity to build tangible outcomes and engage in real-world problem-solving contributed significantly to their engagement. Within the “Highlights”, students frequently pointed to hands-on and collaborative moments such as prototyping (n=21), team experience (n=15), and ideation (n=12). These “Highlights” reveal that affective engagement, and a sense of creative ownership are key emotional drivers of the learning experience. Regarding the category “Learnings”, students emphasized creativity (n=19) and cultural aspects (n=13) as significant areas of increased competence. Especially within the context of the Engineers without Borders Challenge the student teams worked on projects within international contexts, where cultural sensitivity represented a new learning dimension, which especially fostered a broader understanding of cultural acceptance and its implications for a context-sensitive and user-centered design. Teamwork (n=12) was also repeatedly mentioned as an acquired competence, underlining the learning impact of group work throughout the project. On the other hand, challenges and failures were mainly reported in the areas of team organization (n=14), conceptualization (n=14), and time management (n=13). This suggests that although students appreciate autonomy and self-organization, these aspects also represent significant challenges in open-ended, interdisciplinary project formats. In the context of innovation management, however, the category of fails is framed positively, as the failure of ideas and corresponding turnarounds are part and parcel of innovation development. 3.3 Implications Considered as a whole, the results indicate that participation in the course innovation management in the Challenge-Based Learning format is experienced as an engaging and meaningful format, particularly due to its focus on practice-oriented application of knowledge, the opportunity to experience team collaboration and working with creative openness. These results are consistent with the assumed benefits of CBL in engineering education regarding the development of interdisciplinary skills providing a learning environment for self-directed and handson learning processes (Gallagher & Savage, 2023; Kohn Rådberg et al., 2020; Membrillo-Hernández et al., 2023). However, they also emphasize the importance of providing structured guidance and support in areas such as project management, communication techniques, and decision-making, especially in heterogeneous teams and under time constraints. In addition to the students’ experiences with this CBL-Approach, the teaching team experienced the ongoing challenge to maintain the right balance between structured support, and openness towards the results of the learning process during the project phase. Reflection plays a central role in the didactic concept of the course, as it supports students in consciously engaging with their learning processes on a metalevel. However, providing individualized reflection formats during the project phase is challenging due to limited teaching resources. The gallery walk session, in which all teams participate, offers an important platform for guided exchange and peer learning. However, its depth is inherently limited, as not all emerging themes can be fully addressed and discussed in plenary. In this sense the insights have direct implications for the iterative development of the Challenge-Based Learning approach. Future iterations of course implementations should focus on targeted interventions such as early-stage team development impulses, explicit guidance on project phases, involving cooperation partners, and further reflection checkpoints with the teaching team to support conceptual alignment and create further opportunities for formative feedback. From a broader perspective, the results suggest the potential for scaling up the CBL approach to further enhance the development of highly demanded future skills such as collaboration, creativity, problem solving, and reflection skills in other learning contexts in engineering education. Conversations with students during the reflection sessions also indicated an interest in applying Challenge-Based Learning formats to other courses such as mathematics, digitization, and machine learning. This feedback demonstrates the perceived transferability of the Challenge-Based Learning approach and its potential to increase engagement and perceived relevance in traditionally more abstract or theoretical areas. 4 CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS The qualitative insights of the reflection sessions as an element of accompanying research on the implemented approach provide an illustration of the impact of Challenge-Based Learning in higher education contexts. Students reported high levels of engagement, motivation and personal development - particularly in the areas of teamwork, creative ideation and practical implementation of project concepts. At the same time, recurring difficulties related to time constraints, unclear expectations and coordination in diverse teams highlight areas where pedagogical support structures and clear transparency of assessment criteria are required. With a perspective on its transfer potential, this Challenge-Based Learning approach is well-suited for developing highly demanded future skills like problem-solving, creativity, and collaboration. However, its full impact is realized when combined with clear support strategies that guide students through open-ended, interdisciplinary challenges. The integration of student feedback into course design processes offers a powerful tool for continuously evolving educational practice in line with learner needs and future-oriented competencies. However, limitations should be acknowledged. While the open format of the reflection sessions encouraged honest feedback, the answers may be influenced by group dynamics or social desirability. Furthermore, the qualitative data were collected from brief, keyword-based responses rather than detailed narratives, which restricts the scope for interpretation. Another methodological limitation is the retrospective use of anonymized data from students without prior informed consent. Although the materials were collected during regular course activities and did not contain any personal or sensitive information, students were not explicitly informed that their contributions would later be analyzed for research purposes. This issue will be addressed in future iterations of the course by communicating the potential research use of such data transparently and securing informed consent in advance. Additionally, qualitative coding provides valuable insights into recurring themes, but the interpretation of these themes is inherently context-bound and should not be viewed as universally representative of all CBL implementations. Further research could combine reflective data with observational studies or learning outcome assessments to triangulate the findings. 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work has been enabled by the financial support of Stiftung Innovation in der Hochschullehre in the project Roll-Out, Empowerment, Design in Engineering Education (REDiEE). 6 REFERENCES Beagon, U., Kövesi, K., Tabas, B., Nørgaard, B., Lehtinen, R., Bowe, B., Gillet, C., & Spliid, C. M. (2023). Preparing engineering students for the challenges of the SDGs: what competences are required? European Journal of Engineering Education, 48(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2022.2033955 Ciolacu, M. I., Mihailescu, B., Rachbauer, T., Hansen, C., Amza, C. G., & Svasta, P. (2023). Fostering Engineering Education 4.0 Paradigm Facing the Pandemic and VUCA World. Procedia Computer Science, 217, 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.12.213 Cucuzzella, C. (2009). An Evaluation and Innovation Framework for Responsible Design based on Prudence. Design Connexity - 8th European Academy of Design (EAD), 109–114.