Summary

This chapter describes the use of Challenge-Based Learning (CBL) to promote the adoption of active learning in a sustainable and inclusive way. Through the CBL format of a hackathon – an intense, time-bound event where people collaborate in teams to solve challenges – approximately 40 participants worked in small groups to investigate and co-develop potential solutions to issues of passive, predictable teaching. Throughout this almost day-long activity, staff, students, and mentors came together to tackle the challenge of ‘Activating Active Learning’ within an Irish university.

All participants were invited to share their feedback through a post-event survey. Staff described how they were introduced to or were reminded of the value of a range of active approaches, including CBL, through the hackathon approach. Mentors described group dynamics, the importance of clearly defining the mentoring role, and the potential value of further time for reflection and action. The student perspective indicated that staff attending seemed to be receptive to student suggestions about making their courses more inspiring. In at least one case, the hackathon opened discussions about the usefulness of GenAI tools for students, countering impressions of such tools as ‘academic demons’. This chapter describes the perceptions of participants based on their experiences at this relatively unusual higher education event. It also outlines the solutions that were generated, further highlighting sustainability and transferability potential. Finally, the chapter concludes with recommendations and resources from the hackathon organisers that may be of practical use for those considering and/or planning similar events within their own institutional context.

Case Study: A Hackathon About Active Learning

Hackathons typically involve multidisciplinary teams, with members playing distinct roles throughout the process. To set the scene, the theoretical underpinnings and common purposes of a hackathon will be introduced.

Theoretical Underpinning

The stakes have never been higher for higher education institutions to prepare students to respond to societal needs. Future citizens will need to develop the know-how to create advanced and sustainable technologies but also acquire the transversal skills and social competencies to anticipate the future needs of humanity (Sukackė et al., 2022). Employers want workers who can demonstrate a wide range of critical competencies such as critical thinking, problem-solving, teamwork and decision-making skills (Covic & Manojlovic, 2019). While disciplinary knowledge remains crucial, there is increasing recognition of the importance of transversal skills including current expertise such as sustainability literacy, intercultural competence, and data literacy (OVPAA, 2023a).

CBL is being perceived as a practical educational approach that can potentially equip students with the competencies and skills needed for a rapidly changing world (Perna et al., 2023). There is no one agreed definition of what exactly CBL is, but much existing literature refers to the version that originally came from the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow Project, as described by Nichols & Cator below (see Leijon et al., 2021; Nichols & Cator, 2008; Perna et al., 2023).

CBL is an engaging multidisciplinary approach to teaching and learning that encourages students to leverage the technology they use in their daily lives to solve real-world problems. CBL is collaborative and hands-on, asking students to work with peers, teachers, and experts in their communities and around the world to ask good questions, develop deeper subject area knowledge, accept and solve challenges, take action, and share their experience. (Nichols & Cator, 2008, p. 1)

CBL has become increasingly important as a distinctive active pedagogy within the student learning experience at Dublin City University (DCU), and it is prominently featured in the current DCU Teaching and Learning Strategy 2023-2028 (OVPAA, 2023b). CBL is also being heavily promoted and enacted through DCU Futures (DCU Futures, 2024) and the European Consortium of Innovative Universities (ECIU) as a potentially transformative approach for students to work with peers, businesses, and communities to co-develop solutions to real-life problems (ECIU, 2024). CBL offers an effective educational framework for learning to solve real-life challenges, enabling the acquisition of disciplinary knowledge while developing transferable skills (Stahlberg et al., 2022). While there may appear to be certain similarities with pedagogies such as Problem-Based and Project-Based Learning, CBL is distinctive in that participants identify an open challenge and work together in a co-creative process of learning (Sukackė et al., 2022). More detail on the differences between these pedagogical approaches is described in the literature (Membrillo-Hernández et al., 2019).

The remainder of this chapter will focus on one specific form of CBL – a nano challenge, which is the shortest form of CBL and one that typically focuses on a particular content area or skill, has tight boundaries, and is more teacher-directed and introductory in nature (Nichols et al., 2016). A hackathon, typically run over one to three days, is one of the most common manifestations of this nano challenge format and will be described further next.

What is a Hackathon and Why Are They Used?

Readers of this chapter may already be very aware of the benefits of active learning and its focus on ‘involving students in doing things and thinking about what they are doing’ (Bonwell & Eison, 1991, p. 5). Active learning is said to help develop higher-order thinking and forge a deeper connection with the subject matter by engaging students, often in groups, in the process of learning through activities and/or discussion (Freeman et al., 2014).

It is perhaps not surprising then that a hackathon is seen as a promising vehicle for active learning. In active learning, curriculum knowledge is constructed, applied and evaluated through activity, which might include physical, mental and emotional acts of learning (Taylor et al., 2019). On paper at least, a hackathon – a time-bound, high-energy event where groups of people collaborate in teams to devise solutions for challenges (Briscoe & Mulligan, 2014) – seems to embrace many of its fundamental characteristics. Key to the idea of a hackathon is that it revolves around a challenge that actively engages participants in a situation that is real, relevant and related to their environment (DCU Teaching Enhancement Unit, 2024). Challenge solutions can vary in scope and can be technical (such as a working prototype) or take the form of a set of recommendations (such as a presentation or a report).

For those seeking to implement in various formats and timeframes, a hackathon represents one way in which to put CBL into practice. While hackathons might be more readily associated with coding-related events, they are not only suitable for technological innovations and can be used to explore significant ‘real world’ socially relevant matters in a range of disciplines (Feder, 2021). The number of hackathon events worldwide has grown significantly in recent years (Chau & Gerber, 2023). A recent multidisciplinary literature review found that hackathons are being used for three key purposes: to promote innovative ways of doing things, foster student learning in STEM subjects in particular, and to provide a platform for collaboration with diverse stakeholders (Chau & Gerber, 2023). Indeed hackathons have been used in a range of contexts at DCU, ranging from large numbers of students in Business and Chemistry disciplines to smaller but still highly-intensive events for those in teaching and teaching support roles (DCU Teaching Enhancement Unit, 2024).

In 2022, DCU’s first-ever staff-oriented hackathon took place with a specific focus on ‘How can we design an authentic and sustainable assessment experience for all?’. That event was funded through the DCU Futures project and a detailed case study is available (O’Riordan & Gormley, 2023). The ‘Activating Active Learning’ hackathon described in this chapter was similarly aimed at staff from all disciplines. However this time, participants were asked to collaboratively engage with the ‘Big Idea’ – the overarching theme – of Active Learning. As well as being a core principle of recommended teaching practice, the furthering of active learning approaches is a strategic objective of DCU (OVPAA, 2023b). The project received funding from Ireland’s HEA Strategic Alignment of Teaching and Learning Enhancement (SATLE) fund which is designed to drive teaching and learning innovation across the higher education sector, with a focus on Education for Sustainable Development, Digital Transformation and Academic Integrity.

How the ‘Activating Active Learning’ Hackathon Panned Out

A hackathon requires a team-based multidisciplinary approach so that multiple perspectives can be shared and leveraged. At the ‘Activating Active Learning’ hackathon, the teams were comprised of Teaching Enhancement Unit (TEU) staff members (third-space professionals, as per Whitchurch, 2008) who acted as internal mentors, teaching and learning leaders from other institutions (pedagogy and professional learning experts) who acted as external mentors), members of DCU academic staff (who formed the majority of the hackathon teams) and students (who acted as sources of insight and feedback on the student perspective).

The event itself took place in May 2024, running from 9 am to 3.30 pm. It began with a welcome, an introduction to what the event was about, as outlined in Figure 1. This was followed by a musically-themed and light-hearted introduction to each of the mentors that highlighted their particular areas of expertise and set the tone for the event. For example, one of the mentors from a surgical institution was introduced as taking ‘a scalpel to boring pedagogy’ while the song ‘Like a Surgeon’ played. Another mentor, with expertise in academic integrity, was introduced as an unbeatable alternative to ChatGPT against the backdrop of Aretha Franklin’s ‘Integrity’. Students were also introduced and their role and value in acting as a source of feedback and student perspective for the academic teams was highlighted. Four students were recruited as student ambassadors while one recent student (also a co-author of this piece) participated as a recent undergraduate currently in a research assistant role. The students were from diverse cultural backgrounds which reflected the diverse profile of students attending DCU. Various materials such as flip charts, pens, and printouts were provided to support discussion, note-taking, and the capturing of ideas. The intention behind these was to help participants quickly capture and share thinking and processes without potentially becoming bogged down in technology. Catering options were available throughout the day.

Participants were given the choice of which mentors to join on the day, enabling self-selection into topics and mentors of particular interest. This supported inclusivity by allowing participants to join specific topics of interest and work with mentors who had a profile of expertise in that space. With the teams in place, creative team names were invited and an icebreaker/team-building activity involving the creation of the longest paper chain with constrained resources got underway. This was intended to act as an accessible icebreaker for getting to know one another better, and set the scene for the collaborative and fast-paced activities to come.

As Figure 2 indicates, CBL – and therefore the hackathon in our case – moves through a three-phase cycle comprising:

1. Engage Phase, where learners move from an abstract ‘Big Idea’ to a concrete and actionable challenge;
2. Investigate Phase, where learners carry out research into and initial analysis of various potential solutions;
3. Act Phase, where learners develop solution(s), share them with a wider audience and ideally implement with the stakeholder.

These phases were explained transparently to the participants, as part of scaffolding them through the cycle to develop their final outputs. Throughout the process, the students were available to provide student perspectives and the mentors were on hand to guide and provide feedback and critical friend advice at each stage. In the Engage phase, the teams explore the ‘Big Idea’ and develop potential essential questions to be investigated. The Essential Questions are the questions that make the challenge relevant and interesting to all the members of the team. The hackathon facilitators asked the teams to consider what are the questions which are going to lead to answers that are going to mean most to you when it comes to embedding active learning approaches in your specific context? By the end of this, each team identified a specific actionable challenge with a challenge statement of relevance. A collaborative (Google Slides) slide deck template was shared to capture outputs such as the challenge statements and make them visible to other teams.

In the Investigate phase, the teams use the challenge statement to drive what they are investigating. In this phase, teams use guiding questions to identify what information they need to tackle the challenge and where they might find it. Various strategies such as the fishbone technique and videos on systems thinking were introduced to emphasise the importance of asking the correct questions of your challenge – to look beyond the obvious, to really analyse the root cause of the problem. Systems thinking focuses on the need to ‘zoom out’ and consider the influence of other interventions, policies, structures, patterns, and norms in the broader system that could contribute to a possible outcome. Techniques such as the fishbone technique or diagram provide a visual approach to looking at cause and effect and may aid the brainstorming process.

During the Act phase, the teams use findings from the Investigate phase to design, develop and present the suggested solution(s)/recommendation(s). At this event, the teams were asked to give a five-minute presentation to the room, making specific recommendations for change in relation to active learning in the short, medium and long term.

The facilitators emphasised that they were not interested in sophisticated slides or graphics, and were much more interested in the actual recommendations which needed to be concrete and actionable.

Table 1 below documents the challenge statements and the recommendations that emerged:

As the presentations took place, interesting responses were made by the audience. For example, the idea of introducing a dedicated CBL Week at the university seemed popular. The power of the student presence and input was noted alongside the many thoughtful ideas and suggestions generated from the discussions. Using data from post-event surveys and student reflections, the following section will describe how the hackathon was perceived overall and the impact it appeared to have had.

An overview of the process, logistics, and experience is provided in Figure 3.

A sense of the team activity on the day is provided in Figure 4.

Key Themes and Impact

Ethical approval for this project was granted through the DCU Research Ethics Committee (see Reference DCUREC/2024/020). A thematic analysis approach was adopted to analyse the survey feedback. As per Braun and Clarke (2006; 2021), thematic analysis was used to organise, analyse, interpret and report patterns within the data collected. Working through Braun and Clarke’s (2021) six-phase process, this involved an iterative process of data familiarisation, coding, theming, review of themes, and theme refinement. The following are the five main themes that were developed based on the codes generated. The order of themes is based on the frequency of specific concepts and how strongly they came through in the survey responses.

Whilst this chapter does not include a comprehensive account of personal reflexivity (Walsh, 2003), it is important to note the role of the authors in both the hackathon activity and the subsequent research, and our awareness of how our prior experiences and motivations might influence the decisions made throughout the project (Finlay, 2002). Two of the researchers (CG and LG) designed and led the hackathon in their role as academic developers within DCU responsible for guiding and supporting CBL implementation. MC acted as a mentor during the hackathon and has experience in professional development for active learning. SC is a recent graduate and a research assistant at DCU. Adopting the view of student voice as a concept that partners students with educators as both ‘critics and creators of educational practice’ (Cook-Sather, 2020, p. 182), SC acted as a source of student-oriented feedback to the groups but also as an observer from the perspective of a learner. His responses are included below.

 1. ‘Creative, Collaborative and Fun’: The Case for CBL as a Pedagogy

Overall, staff perceptions of the hackathon and their active participation in the event was motivated by curiosity about CBL as a pedagogy. The elements of CBL that allow for innovation and creativity like teamwork and collaboration between diverse team members were central to the narrative and perceptions of both staff and mentors.

The staff survey responses emphasised the hackathon as an approach that fostered creativity and inspiration. In fact, a renewed appreciation and acknowledgement of creativity, innovation and a shift towards a more collaborative mindset came through in most staff responses, as did openness to new perspectives. As a staff participant said, ‘Personally, I find CBL leads to me being more creative than I might otherwise be.’

The intangible yet apparently critical elements like the atmosphere and energy on the day of the event along with the opportunity to engage with differing perspectives were all reported to play an important role. The hackathon provided the staff with an opportunity to explore novel approaches to teaching and learning all the while engaging them in a fun, collaborative environment. They gained valuable insight into the intricacies of teamwork and collaboration which will potentially be used in the classrooms but more importantly, also served to reinforce collaboration on a personal front:

I have a better awareness of the different ways individuals contribute to a hackathon, and to active learning environments. Also, I was reminded of the importance of fun to the learning environment and to team cohesion. – Staff participant

The concept of a hackathon itself was new to me, lecturers coming together to improve their teaching. Participating in the hackathon made me appreciate the lecturers who clearly put in the effort even more. The wholesome atmosphere was definitely a large positive. Simply attending an optional event such as this, shows that these lecturers have the desire and passion to improve their teaching and help students, which I do feel is a limitation of the hackathon because these lecturers are most likely not the lecturers who aren’t effectively connecting with students when it comes to teaching. – Student participant

2. ‘Fast and Furious’: The Tensions of Timeframes and the Space to Reflect

By their very nature, hackathons are fast-paced, timed events with multiple moving pieces – balancing the dynamics of experience with potential stability of outcomes. The academics were eager to experience CBL as well as to understand how a single-day hackathon might be structured. They participated in the hackathon to explore the potential of implementing CBL within their classrooms. With that in mind, the hackathon offered a host of ideas: the availability of expert mentors, access to student perspective via student ambassadors, and the range of activities during the day all provided the staff with varied avenues of engagement.

However, when talking about limitations of a hackathon, one fundamental aspect echoed in the responses: time. The length of the hackathon proved to be a double-edged sword, reported to be both a pro and a con. The hackathon was a fast-paced event limiting the depth to which the ideas could be explored and the scope for implementation of solutions Possible stress and fatigue due to the pace of the hackathon was also offered as a potential limitation. There was acknowledgement however that limiting the event to a single day made it possible for the staff to experience the full CBL cycle and provided an understanding of structure and organisation. As one staff participant commented, ‘working through the process in a single day, which was fast and busy, gave a complete picture of engagement.’

A few recommendations were made around the time allocated for the hackathon:  suggestions included a longer, possibly two-day event with some aspect of preparatory work before the actual hackathon. Feedback also included allowing scope for implementation and exploration of complex outcomes via a follow-up session.

Limited time available for deep exploration of complex problems, which may lead to superficial solutions… Emphasis on quick results might overshadow the development of long-term, sustainable solutions. – Staff participant

There was a sense that in order to respond adequately to complex challenges and to consider real-world applications, there needs to be space for deeper exploration of ideas, inclusion of reflective practices and allowance for implementation of potential solutions.

Mentors also noted the inherent challenges for reflection time and space and made some useful suggestions about how time might be best spent.

Going back to that idea about being able to think, I’d imagine such events would work best over a period of days where time can be incorporated for individual reflection and thinking time before coming back together as a group. – Hackathon mentor

Perhaps an opportunity for teams to reflect during their presentations on how they found the process of a hackathon. The teams all presented good solutions but I’d love to hear their experience (and difficulties) of getting to that solution. – Hackathon mentor.

3. ‘A Tool in Teaching and Learning’: Engaging Students Through and Beyond CBL

Staff eagerness to improve student engagement was evident in most survey responses. Academics were looking to explore CBL as a potential approach to enhance student experience and in turn foster engagement. The staff hoped to learn from their own experience as a CBL participant and to apply the insights within their own classrooms. The CBL experience via a hackathon proved to be helpful in terms of a possible innovative, real-world approach that they could implement within classrooms/across the faculty:

I am also interested in Hackathons as a tool in teaching and learning. I am involved in running them as part of our programmes in Biotechnology, and experiencing a hackathon as a participant is really useful. – Staff participant

The hackathon format encouraged staff to reflect on strategies to support group work, for example, introducing a variety of team-building activities and providing timely guidance. The staff were also exposed to a number of resources, techniques and guidance materials during the hackathon that reportedly will aid them in improving or implementing CBL. ‘I would hope to incorporate some of the techniques we used into some of my classes’, said one staff participant. Stakeholder involvement, especially the student ambassadors’ feedback on student perspectives around engagement, appeared to be crucial to staff understanding and reevaluating their own teaching and learning practices.

The staff at the event were very receptive and took on my suggestions well, such as thinking about incentives for student participants in trials for new teaching methods. One group of lecturers was quite receptive to my suggestion that their subjects can be made so much more inspirational. The example I remember was maths – it can be quite monotonous and lead to an unexciting career but lecturers should strive to inspire the students with the potential of their subjects and the example I gave was the movie The Imitation Game, which used maths in an important world-changing way. – Student participant

4. Reactivating Active Learning: Active Learning Approaches as a Way of Enhancing Student Engagement

The main theme for the hackathon was ‘Activating Active Learning’. Most of the challenge statements from the teams focused around the Big Idea of Active Learning. Student insights allowed staff to reflect on approaches they used in the classroom and how they might adapt to student needs with more interactive tools/approaches. Staff found the hackathon informative especially when it came to the discussions and availability of the variety of activities and tools that could be used in the learning environment:

Some active learning is already incorporated into my teaching practice. I will look for further places where active learning could be included. Following some insightful comments from the student ambassadors, I now intend to include more polling/anonymous quizzes during lectures. – Staff participant

Staff took the hackathon as an opportunity to actively research and consider implementing various active learning strategies in their teaching:

I’ll use student response systems like Vevox (gamification), and interactive tools like digital whiteboards (Loop Board activity), more group-based projects and peer-to-peer teaching activities to promote collaboration and deeper understanding among students. – Staff participant

The significance of active learning was reinforced as a result of group work, student feedback and research-informed conclusions shared by the teams at the end of the day. Most staff were somewhat familiar with some active learning approaches and are already using them, however they reported that they have identified a variety of additional active learning approaches that have potential to be used in their classrooms. Staff reported being inspired to explore a range of approaches and be more innovative in their teaching practices.

Lastly, there were also some additional benefits in terms of learnings from the topics discussed in the respective teams, most notably Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). Staff noted that the hackathon has piqued their interest and opened avenues for further collaboration and motivation for ESD engagement:

I also gained a lot of information around sustainability and its role in teaching generally, particularly as a motivator for teachers and students. – Staff participant

It was fascinating to see the different thought processes between lecturers and students. The things they think are big issues we understand differently and don’t see as big issues. For instance, new AI tools, they see them as these academic demons which would replace all hard work, but for me and many students ….it is not that. For us, it is basically an enhanced Google, because, despite the worrying by lecturers, Chat GPT cannot write you an assignment. It is, in my view, just a useful tool for inspiration and information searching. – Student participant

5. ‘A Collaborative Environment’: Impact of Mentor Readiness to Engage

Mentors played an important role in the hackathon, guiding the teams and facilitating group work while keeping them on track. According to the survey responses, mentors felt prepared to take on the role. Their ease within the role came primarily from their prior expertise in leading multidisciplinary collaborations, supporting faculties, and managing diverse teams along with the pre-event guidance provided by the hackathon leads. The pre-hackathon support material provided to the mentors in the form of ‘mentor packs’ was cited as useful in setting the scene and clarifying expectations. The relevant nature of the challenges provided opportunities for engagement and learning while the structured process was said to be useful in terms of guidance.

Mentors reported feeling generally well-prepared for their role. However most acknowledged that there is a need for a clearer role definition for the mentors in terms of boundaries around providing guidance/feedback and pacing the teams. Additional guidance on approaching and leading CBL framework discussions would also be helpful in the next iteration.

The mentors reported that the hackathon leads were effective in maintaining focus, facilitating progress, creating a conducive environment and offering guidance towards a solution on the day. Overall, the mentors reported feeling engaged and immersed in an atmosphere of collaboration and learning.

Overall I saw a theme of better communication, engagement and partnership with students to promote active learning, academic engagement, foster academic integrity, embed education for sustainable development, and more. This was really heartening to see. The hackathon served to remind me that really the greatest formula for success in education is a good relationship between student and educator. I left the hackathon event feeling buoyed. – Hackathon mentor

It was a collaborative environment, plenty of support from stakeholders, and overall a fun experience. – Hackathon mentor

Application to Other Contexts

Because this was our second iteration of a staff-oriented hackathon at DCU, the sustainability of the event would appear promising. When the event was run in 2022, a number of suggestions were made about reducing the emphasis on prizes, addressing a problem with room acoustics, incorporating more time alone and more reflection time, and providing more guidance for participants on how to make best use of mentors (QQI, 2022).

As a result of this, some changes were made in 2024. Prizes were not abandoned completely but there was no ‘winning’ presentation and instead prizes were used to encourage creativity in team names and the sharing of reflections after the event itself. Post-event reflection was encouraged instead of attempting to rush in some reflective time on the day. A different, brighter room was used and there were no reports of difficulty hearing other participants.

However, reflecting on the survey data, we may still not be adequately preparing the mentors or indeed preparing the participants on how best to work with them. While the mentor pack and mentor team ‘huddle’ on the day shortly before kick off helped, it seemed that further support in clarifying roles and provision of sample questions might be helpful.

Other points to consider in terms of ongoing sustainability and inclusivity are:

• The extensive planning/coordination time needed to organise a hackathon, which took up considerable time for the two organisers in particular. Obviously, the size and funding of the event is a significant factor in how long it will take to organise. However, a suggested timeline with a lead-in time of three months as described by Lyons et al. (2021) resonates with our experience.
• The funding required for catering (a ready stream of food throughout the day is vital, with sustainable options); additional funds may be required for honorariums and prizes. Depending on the time of year and the numbers attending, there may be room costs to consider.
• Given the involvement of student ambassadors in this event – which we would highly recommend to encourage an inclusive learning experience for all – funds will also need to be sourced to pay for their time. Furthermore, we also made efforts to ensure that the democratic principles of student partnership (Hassan et al., 2022) were enacted. In particular, we wanted to recognise the need to be cognisant of power dynamics to promote collaboration, reciprocity and shared responsibility between staff and students. Instead of having students sit within groups where they may potentially not have the opportunity or confidence to contribute, the students sat separately at first and were sought out by the hackathon participants when questions arose. This allowed the teams the opportunity to clearly phrase their questions and deliberately seek out the expertise on learning that students uniquely had to offer. Sometimes the students responded to the teams individually, sometimes in pairs. Based on what we witnessed on the day, this simple rearrangement of the collaboration setup led to mutually respectful and informed exchanges of knowledge and experience on all sides.
• The timing of the event itself. In retrospect, we would use the full day but are also mindful of the difficulty in attracting participants and mentors to a full-day commitment. However, there is a trade-off that occurs in terms of limited reflection opportunities within a shorter timeframe that should be considered.

We would certainly see a hackathon as a transferable activity to a range of other contexts. Within a university setting, we believe it met our objectives of providing not only an experience of a hackathon for those educators who might be interested in doing something similar themselves, but it also provided a useful vehicle for promoting active learning as a concept and in practical ways. At least two further requests for advice on active learning were made after the event itself by staff who wanted to learn more about how they could apply it while others have told us of changes they made to enhance formative feedback and interaction during lectures. At least one staff member was inspired to implement CBL for the first time the following semester and has since engaged extensively with our unit to develop award-winning practice. The opportunity to experience active learning may be seen as a way to assist educators in making sense of the role of active learning in their own context..

Three Key Takeaways

• The Hackathon format is effective as a sustainable and transferable approach, and reinforces the importance of staff experiencing active learning as learners themselves to fully appreciate applications in their own practice. Students as participants, providing feedback and insights, provide a core supporting element of this learning experience. Read more at https://www.dcu.ie/teu/hackathon
• Sufficient time and space for reflection should be provided for the participants. This necessitates explicit consideration of the length of the day; the location of the event (away from offices or usual working location of the participants); and also planned time for team and individual reflection at the conclusion of the event.
• Mentor readiness and a sense of comfort with the expectations of the role are key to effective facilitation of groups.

References

Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports). ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED336049

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238

Briscoe, G., & Mulligan, C. (2014). Digital innovation: The hackathon phenomenon. Creativeworks London. https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/11418

Chau, C. W., & Gerber, E. M. (2023). On hackathons: A multidisciplinary literature review. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581234

Cook-Sather, A. (2020). Student voice across contexts: Fostering student agency in today’s schools. Theory Into Practice, 59(2), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1705091

Covic, Z., & Manojlovic, H. (2019). Developing key competencies through hackathon-based learning. 2019 IEEE 17th International Symposium on Intelligent Systems and Informatics (SISY), 167–172. https://doi.org/10.1109/SISY47553.2019.9111513

DCU CBL Working Group. (2022). DCU working definition & descriptor of CBL.   https://www.dcu.ie/teu/challenge-based-learning

DCU Futures. (2024). Reimagining undergraduate education for an unscripted world.  https://www.dcu.ie/ovpaa/dcu-futures

DCU Teaching Enhancement Unit. (2024). Hackathons. https://www.dcu.ie/teu/hackathon

European Consortium of Innovative Universities (ECIU). (2024). Learn.  https://www.eciu.eu/learn

Feder, T. (2021). Hackathons catch on for creativity, education, and networking. Physics Today, 74(5), 23–25. https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.4746

Finlay, L. (2002). ‘Outing’ the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), 531–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973202129120052

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Gallagher, S. E., & Savage, T. (2020). Challenge-based learning in higher education: An exploratory literature review. Teaching in Higher Education, 0(0), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1863354

Hassan, O., Foley, S., Cox, J., Young, D., McGrattan, C., and Ní Bheoláin. R. (2022). Steps to Partnership: Developing, Supporting, and Embedding a New Understanding for Student Engagement in Irish Higher Education. All Ireland Journal of Higher Education 14(1). https://doi.org/10.62707/aishej.v14i1.681

Leijon, M., Gudmundsson, P., Staaf, P., & Christersson, C. (2021). Challenge-based learning in higher education: A systematic literature review. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 0(0), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1892503

Lyons, R., Brown, M., and Donlon, E. (2021). Moving the Hackathon Online: Reimagining Pedagogy for the Digital Age. Distance Education in China (7):1–18. https://www.dcu.ie/sites/default/files/inline-files/Hackathons%20Article%20China%202021.pdf

Membrillo-Hernández, J., Ramírez-Cadena, M., Martínez-Acosta, M., Cruz-Gómez, E., Muñoz-Díaz, E., & Elizalde, H. (2019). Challenge-based learning: The importance of world-leading companies as training partners. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 13(3), 1103–1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00569-4

Nichols, M., & Cator, K. (2008). Challenge-based learning white paper. Apple, Inc. https://www.challengebasedlearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/CBL_Paper_2008.pdf

Nichols, M., Cator, K., & Torres, M. (2016). Challenge-based learner user guide. Digital Promise.  https://www.challengebasedlearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CBL_Guide2016.pdf

Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs (OVPAA). (2023a). Transversal skills.  https://www.dcu.ie/ovpaa/transversal-skills

Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs (OVPAA). (2023b). Teaching and learning strategy. https://www.dcu.ie/ovpaa/teaching-and-learning-strategy

O’Riordan, F., & Gormley, C. (2022). A hackathon as a form of professional learning: Reflections on organised chaos. Poster presented at the QQI 10th Year Anniversary Conference, Dublin, 18th October. https://www.dcu.ie/sites/default/files/inline-files/a-hackathon-as-a-form-of-professional-learning-reflections-on-organised-chaos-2.pdf

O’Riordan, F., & Gormley, C. (2023). Running a hackathon for academic staff: A case study from DCU. Irish Journal of Academic Practice, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.21427/F3KM-FC33

Perna, S., Recke, M. P., & Nichols, M. (2023). Challenge-based learning: A comprehensive survey of the literature. https://www.challengeinstitute.org/CBL_Literature_Survey.pdf

Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI). (2022). A hackathon as a form of professional learning: Reflections on organised chaos [Poster]. Video available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xRcQVtN5a4

Stahlberg, N., Brose, A., Diedler, S., & Kuchta, K. (2022). Collaborative, multidisciplinary, international, and societally relevant: A framework combining challenge-based learning and thesis writing across European universities. Towards a New Future in Engineering Education, New Scenarios That European Alliances of Tech Universities Open Up, 1654–1661. https://doi.org/10.5821/conference-9788412322262.1330

Sukackė, V., Guerra, A. O. P. de C., Ellinger, D., Carlos, V., Petronienė, 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, H., Garnham, W., & Ormerod, T. (2019). Active essay writing: Encouraging independent research through conversation. In W. Garnham, T. Betts, P. Oprandi, W. Ashall, J. Kirby, M. Steinberg, H. Taylor, & V. Walden (Eds.), Disrupting traditional pedagogy: Active learning in practice (pp. 58–78). University of Sussex Library. https://doi.org/10.20919/9780995786240

Walsh, R. (2003). The methods of reflexivity. The Humanistic Psychologist, 31(4), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/08873267.2003.9986934

Whitchurch, C. (2008). Shifting identities and blurring boundaries: The emergence of third-space professionals in UK higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(4), 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2008.00387.x

About the authors

Clare Gormley, Lily Girme, Dr Martina Crehan, and Seamus Campau are all members of DCU Teaching Enhancement Unit. We share a commitment to support and share sustainable, inclusive, and evidence-based teaching and learning practices that prepare staff and students to thrive in a complex, ever-changing world.

Corresponding author: Clare Gormley, clare.gormley@dcu.ie