education

sciences
Article
Taking the Challenge: An Exploratory Study of the
Challenge-Based Learning Context in Higher Education
Institutions across Three Different Continents
Antoine van den Beemt 1,† , Patricia Vázquez-Villegas 2,† , Sonia Gómez Puente 1 , Fiona O’Riordan 3 ,
Clare Gormley 3 , Feng-Kuang Chiang 4 , Chuntao Leng 5 , Patricia Caratozzolo 2 , Genaro Zavala 2,6
and Jorge Membrillo-Hernández 2, *

1 Eindhoven School of Education, Eindhoven University of Technology,

P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
2 Institute for the Future of Education and School of Engineering and Sciences, Tecnologico de Monterrey,
Monterrey 64849, Mexico
3 Teaching Enhancement Unit, Dublin City University, D09 DX63 Dublin, Ireland
4 Center for Future Education, School of Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China
5 Student Innovation Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China
6 School of Engineering, Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago 7500973, Chile
* Correspondence: [email protected]
† These authors contributed equally to this work.

Abstract: Teaching by subjects and contents where students passively receive knowledge is increas-
ingly obsolete. Universities are opting for teaching strategies supporting skills development to
face the labor, social, environmental, and economic conditions afflicting us. Employers demand
increasingly complex skills; universities have identified experiential learning as giving access to real
Citation: van den Beemt, A.; situations and learning by doing. One of the most advanced strategies is Challenge-Based Learning
Vázquez-Villegas, P.; Gómez Puente, (CBL). Through real problem situations, faculty and students collaborate to solve an established
S.; O’Riordan, F.; Gormley, C.; challenge, with or without external stakeholders. This educational advancement has been global
Chiang, F.-K.; Leng, C.; Caratozzolo, and is developing graduates with international skills, which ensures a world-class standard. Here
P.; Zavala, G.; Membrillo-Hernández,
we report a global study carried out in universities from three different continents, and we analyze
J. Taking the Challenge: An
the implementations of CBL in educational programs through cases in Mexico, The Netherlands,
Exploratory Study of the
Ireland, and China. Developing skills and competencies is evident, and CBL is a viable way to ensure
Challenge-Based Learning Context in
Higher Education Institutions across
the success of Higher Education graduates. Obstacles in the transformation of faculty towards CBL
Three Different Continents. Educ. Sci. are a similar fence in all cases. For CBL, the path needs to be explored, as it is on the frontline of
2023, 13, 234. https://doi.org/ educational developments that can be most helpful for developing a new paradigm in education.
10.3390/educsci13030234
Keywords: curriculum; higher education; educational innovation; flexibility; STEM
Academic Editor: Ana
Garcia-Valcarcel Munoz-Repiso

Received: 29 November 2022

Revised: 19 January 2023 1. Introduction
Accepted: 16 February 2023
In education, students engage in solving complex problems through discovery and
Published: 23 February 2023
experimentation. In the process, students learn to analyze, synthesize, reflect, and evaluate
in iterative cycles while explaining the reasoning from findings to make decisions [1,2].
Skills for investigating the phenomena of concern are developed, teamwork is promoted,
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
and the capacity for interaction is increased [3]. In this sense, it is expected that professionals
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
in education could be able to recognize, analyze, and resolve complex situations, and
This article is an open access article manage knowledge through permanent learning [4]. Higher education responds to these
distributed under the terms and expectations by looking for different learning and curricular approaches.
conditions of the Creative Commons At the beginning of the 21st century, an educational trend emerged worldwide, ad-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// vocating for the transition towards more learner-centered curricula in higher education,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ enhancing the skills and knowledge required for complex activities [5]. For this transition,
4.0/).

Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030234 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education

Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 2 of 23

active learning or learning by doing showed the most promising results in achieving mean-
ingful and lifelong learning [6]. Challenge-Based Learning (CBL) is an experiential learning
approach [7,8] that is active, learner-based, collaborative, transformative, real-life, reflective,
contextual (based on traditions and place of study), multidisciplinary, and creative [9,10].
In addition, it contains coaching, mentoring, and modeling elements and can be carried out
in face-to-face, digital, or blended formats [11,12].

Theoretical Framework
The educational concept of CBL is an evolution from approaches including Problem-
Based Learning (PBL), Project-Based Learning (PrBL), and Design-Based Learning (DBL).
They share generating engagement in students, who become the leading actors in construct-
ing their learning. Through these approaches, students engage with real-world problems
and are encouraged to participate in developing specific solutions. One of the main differ-
ences between CBL and the other approaches is the focus on designing the problem, the
process, and the solution, to fit with students’ professional future [13]. CBL emulates the
modern workplace experience, harnessing students’ interest in their education while devel-
oping key skills and competencies [14,15]. To emphasize the evolution in approaches and
supply context for the origins of CBL, Table 1 presents the key characteristics of each of the
four approaches. However, we acknowledge the controversies in defining the boundaries
of each included approach.

Table 1. Key characteristics of Project, Problem, Design, and Challenge-Based Learning 1 .

Technique CBL PBL PrBL DBL

Hypothetical designed Academic, specific,
Learning object Real-world problems Discipline-specific
problems world-related task
Open-ended,
Open, problematic, real Often fictional, not real A predefined problem real-life/authentic,
Object characteristics
solution needed solutions are needed requires a solution hands-on,
multi/interdisciplinary
Variable solutions to To solve the problem at
To follow the plan to Acquisition of
develop a more hand. Student’s
Expected outcome the end to carry out the disciplinary knowledge
profound knowledge of dialogue to reach a
unique assigned project and skills development
the subjects. conclusion
Open, creative,
contextual, and A presentation or The learning process is
Expected product innovative solutions to None, focus to learn implementation of the leading. Innovative
result in concrete solution solutions
actions
Gather knowledge,
Analyze, design, Work with the assigned
Student’s role Work with the problem analyze, explore,
develop and execute project
validate, and apply
Coach, process and
Designer, coach, Facilitator, guide,
Instructor’s roles Facilitator, manager self-development,
co-researcher adviser
facilitator
Tackle the challenge in
Ability to reason and Product, process, skills,
Assessment a way stakeholders Product
apply their knowledge and knowledge
measure
1 Information obtained from [13,16–18].

A challenge in CBL is an activity, task, or situation that represents an incentive and an

obstacle to overcome and that requires the development and application of diverse, inter-,
and multidisciplinary knowledge to be solved. The challenge triggers the generation and
application of new knowledge and the necessary tools or resources [17]. In this way, it has
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 3 of 23

been said that CBL fits the Industry 4.0 requirements [19] since students develop skills and
knowledge when working on challenges with their communities’ faculty and experts.
However, Gallagher and Savage [9], in a review of the existing literature, highlight
several issues with current understandings of CBL, which somewhat detract from its
potential impact, including the use of mixed or no frameworks, the application mainly in
STEM, and relatively little focus on whether the challenge was met. These issues imply the
need for solid research evidence to inform decisions about when and how to use CBL as a
pedagogical approach. Furthermore, in their literature review, Leijon et al. [20] identified
just 36 articles on CBL over 11 years. Although the number of reports is increasing, more
research and guidelines are needed to ensure that CBL truly benefits student learning—and,
most importantly, achieves significant societal impact. A lack of information regarding the
institutional scale application of CBL and the effect of different contexts has led to these
knowledge gaps in such a complex and versatile phenomenon, whose literature is only
characterized by isolated empirical subject-related issues.
To enlighten future directions of CBL in the educational panorama, research is nec-
essary to provide a common ground for CBL implementation [9]. Thus, this paper aims
to explain how CBL has been implemented in higher education institutions in different
contexts to contribute to developing skills and competencies in higher education. There-
fore, this work intends to answer the following research questions: (1) How do different
universities implement CBL? And (2) How is CBL a good strategy for developing skills
and competencies in higher education students?

2. Methodology
To explain and compare CBL implementation in higher education institutes in Mex-
ico, the Netherlands, Ireland, and China, a comparative case study (CCS) approach was
chosen [21]. Comparative case studies involve the analysis and synthesis of the similarities,
differences, and patterns across two or more cases that share a common focus or goal,
contributing to understanding how and why particular programs or policies work or fail
to work. CCS advocates an emergent rather than a pre-determined design, considering
actors and processes rather than a case bounded by specific space and time. This emergent
design supports an exploratory approach to phenomena, focusing on narrative rather than
pre-defined variables (see also [22]).
The structure of CCS offers comparison across three axes: transversally, comparing his-
torically over time; vertically, comparing influences at international, national, regional, and
local scales; and horizontally, contrasting cases with one another concerning social actors,
materials, and influences [21]. The cases to be compared include Tecnologico de Monterrey
in Mexico (TEC), Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) in the Netherlands, Dublin
City University (DCU) in Ireland, and the Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) in China.
The case selection was information oriented, aiming for maximum variation [22] in the
development and implementation of CBL. However, they share a strive for educational
innovation that leads to a better connection with today’s complex societal issues. Thus, the
common goal is curriculum development using CBL as an educational concept. The three
CCS dimensions are operationalized as follows:
1. Transversal dimension (historical within-case developmental overview)—context and
rationale for the implementation of CBL in each of the cases are described.
2. Vertical dimension (within-case description presents social actors and influences)—attitude
and roles of students, faculty, and stakeholders.
3. Horizontal dimension (contrasting cases)—success factors and opportunity areas of
each CBL implementation.
Data collection for each case consisted of institutional and/or national education
policy documents, descriptions, and evaluations of educational innovation projects, and
selected non-structured interviews with responsible faculty and/or educational researchers
and staff.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 4 of 23

3. Results
3.1. Transversal Dimension: Context and Rationale of CBL Implementation
The context (description of case studies) and rationale (logical basis) of CBL imple-
mentation across the four cases are summarized in Table 2. Afterward, the four case studies
are described, as well as concrete examples of CBL courses for each case.

Table 2. Context and rationale of CBL implementation in the four case studies.

Case Study TEC TU/e DCU SJTU

Country Mexico the Netherlands Ireland China
University Private, 26 campuses Public, 1 campus Public, 5 campuses Public, 7 campuses
Number of students 35,000 14,000 17,000 40,000
In October 2019,
Forerunner in the ECIU member; strong
China’s Ministry of
Netherlands and Europe in tradition of working
Education released
curriculum-wide closely with industry
Top-down institutional ‘Quality 22, Teaching
Context of CBL implementation and and society in an
strategy; educational Reform’; Chinese
implementation research of CBL; interdisciplinary
research on CBL. universities actively
combination of a top-down manner with an
incorporate best
program with bottom-up entrepreneurial
practices in higher
initiatives. mindset.
education worldwide.
DBL: real-life problems
With the premise of Need to cultivate
promote meaningful
academic quality innovative talent in
learning and self-directed
strengthening and to engineering; in 1986,
groups support
face 21st Century PBL first recognized as
development of
challenges and Five-year project; a successful teaching
problem-solving skills
Rationale of CBL opportunities; September 2021; CBL and learning approach;
since the beginning of the
implementation developed and central pillar of proposing a new
21st Century; since 2019,
implemented a new educational innovation. engineering education
the evolution to CBL
educational model: in 2017; CBL is the
emphasizes small-scale
Tec21, starting in 2012 extension of PBL since
and flexible education,
and fully implemented the beginning of the
implemented as embedded
in 2019. 21st Century.
curriculum practice.

3.1.1. Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico

Tecnologico de Monterrey is a private university located in northern Mexico. It is the
number 1 private university in Mexico and 30 worldwide, following the QS ranking. To face
the challenges and opportunities glimpsed in the 21st century, Tecnologico de Monterrey
developed and implemented a new educational model: Tec21, starting in 2012 and fully
implemented in 2019 [18]. As an Institutional objective, this model was under the premise
of strengthening academic quality. CBL is one of the Tec21 Educational Model pillars,
following: Flexibility (it consists of offering the students different alternatives to plan
their development in congruence with the strengthening of personal identity); Inspiring
trained faculty (characteristics of the professors that allow them to leave their mark and
be an aspirational example to the people with whom they interact inside and outside
the institution); and a Comprehensive educational experience that makes it memorable
(induction of affinity relationships that favor personal and professional identity through
experience) [18,19]. CBL pedagogical orientation with which challenges are implemented
in block-type training units is part of the operation or execution of the educational model,
which includes the dimensions of the challenge, student, environment, and faculty, which
interact for learning.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 5 of 23

Today, this institutional strategy has top-down permeated the entire Tec de Monterrey
educational system. Nowadays, each career’s semester, block, or week is based on CBL.
More than 35,000 students, distributed in the 26 campuses in the country, from 44 careers,
have been impacted by the Tec21 Educational Model and are part of the generations whose
curriculum is designed under the philosophy of this new model [23]. Tec21 model is
recognized as an Educational Innovation and a reference for Mexican and worldwide
universities [24–27]. Recently, Tecnologico de Monterrey inaugurated the Institute for the
Future of Education (IFE), where CBL is one strong line of research [28]. The IFE is strength-
ening the model with further educational research that will deepen the understanding of
CBL use and its impact.

3.1.2. Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) in the Netherlands has around 14,000 students
and 2000 staff. It is a forerunner in the Netherlands and Europe in curriculum-wide imple-
mentation and research of CBL. This focus on CBL evolved from the introduction of DBL in
the late 1990s. DBL was introduced at TU/e to embrace the principles that real-life problems
promote meaningful learning and that self-directed groups guided by facilitators support the
development of problem-solving skills [29,30].
At TU/e, the evolution from DBL to CBL emphasized small-scale and flexible edu-
cation. Our university aims to implement CBL as embedded curriculum practice rather
than as a different pedagogical approach to existing structures [9]. This also implies that
TU/e allows for variety in CBL implementation across study components and depart-
ments [10]. The large-scale curriculum approach is based on a program that combines
the implementation of bottom-up initiatives with research and a top-down program. The
effects of faculty-led CBL experiments on student learning behavior and learning outcomes
are studied in an evidence-informed setup.

3.1.3. Dublin City University, Ireland

Dublin City University (DCU) is a young, dynamic university with a distinctive
mission to transform lives and societies through education, research, and innovation.
DCU is relatively new to CBL. Industry involvement is key to DCU’s success, as it was
one of Ireland’s first universities to introduce a work placement program [31]. DCU is a
European Consortium of Innovative Universities (ECIU) member. The ECIU is a network
of universities driven by a standard set of values and beliefs, one of which is a commitment
to innovative forms of teaching and learning. The vision is to become an ECIU University
where learners, academics, and researchers solve real-life economic and societal challenges.
All members of the ECIU network have a strong tradition of working closely with industry
and society in an interdisciplinary manner with an entrepreneurial mindset [32].
In 2020, DCU was awarded over GBP 20 million as part of the Irish government’s
Human Capital Initiative [33] underpinning the DCU Futures project. This five-year project
aims to create a radically different undergraduate learning experience that will foster the
development of graduates who can flourish in the unscripted world of the 21st century
and play a pivotal role in advancing Ireland’s future prosperity [34]. Ten new innovative
multidisciplinary programs were launched in September 2021, with CBL as a central pillar
of educational innovation. In this context, DCU can share some early CBL experiences and
discuss lessons learned to date.

3.1.4. Chinese Universities

In October 2019, China’s Ministry of Education released ‘Quality 22, Opinions on
Deepening Undergraduate Education Opinions on Deepening the Teaching Reform and
Comprehensively Improving the Quality of Talent Cultivation’ [35]. Under Quality 22,
Chinese universities actively incorporate best practices in higher education worldwide.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 6 of 23

Engineering education plays a crucial role in Chinese higher education. In the new
economic policy proposed by the Chinese government, engineering education in univer-
sities is subjected to more rigorous standards, and the cultivation of innovative talent
in engineering has become a central research topic in China [36]. For example, Cheng
and Yang [37] improved cooperation between companies and schools to enhance talent
cultivation. Li and Lin [38] determined that academic competition and high student scores
correlated with teaching practices. Chen [36] proposed the ‘five-in-one’ innovative talent
training system comprising classroom, practical teaching as a pedagogical tool, subject,
secondary classroom activities as a supplement, and school–company cooperation as an
extension to classroom education. Du et al. [39] found that IoT engineering courses lacked
a platform and proposed the Technical Knowledge Map of IoT Engineering.
Over the past few decades, the total number of colleges and universities in China
has increased, with 2738 public universities in 2020—including 1270 universities and 1468
higher education institutions [40]. Many university students are studying science, technol-
ogy, engineering, and mathematics. In addition, the Chinese government has continued to
promote engineering education to revitalize China’s technological capabilities, building
on the world’s Industry 4.0 technological revolution and proposing a new engineering
education in 2017, which improved engineering education at Chinese universities [41].
Scholars have also improved pedagogical methods and assessment systems to address the
shortcomings of higher engineering education in China [42].
In China, CBL is the extension of PBL [43]. PBL was first recognized as a successful
and innovative teaching and learning approach in higher engineering education. In 1986,
the Shanghai Second Medical University and Xian Medical University were the first to
introduce PBL in China. Since then, PBL’s methodology has become more refined and
commonplace in medical schools and has been applied to other teaching processes, such
as integrated design experiments and engineering training. However, since the beginning
of the 21st Century, CBL teaching has been gradually implemented in engineering and
technology and has achieved some success.

3.1.5. Concrete CBL Courses Examples in the Four Case Studies

• Two successful examples of CBL at TEC. The first case concerns a system capable
of helping civil protection personnel monitor, guide, and record crucial data in a
seismic emergency, “TECuidamos”. This system was developed for a year by stu-
dents of Telecommunications Engineering and Electronic Systems, tutored by pro-
fessors in Engineering and Education, through a web administrator and using route
planning algorithms hosted on a cloud server to provide the user with an efficient
escape route in real-time (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/4931, accessed
on 15 January 2023). The second case concerns the design and application of an
academic cultural experience for university students who engaged in biodiversity
preservation while developing research and problem-solving skills, “Axolotl Chal-
lenge: Saving Biodiversity Through Engineering.” This experience focused on the
generation of engineering solutions for the conservation of biodiversity and chinam-
pas (floating agricultural gardens) in Xochimilco, a UNESCO World Heritage City
(https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/jtes-2022-0005, accessed on 15 January 2023).
• TU/e innovation Space project. TU/e innovation Space project is a graduate-level
course aiming toward challenge-based learning in interdisciplinary student teams.
The course is open to students from all university programs. However, it often attracts
Industrial Engineering students. Students work on open-ended assignments in close in-
teraction with high-tech companies and societal organizations in the university ecosys-
tem. The course combines the design and engineering of a product/service/system
and new business development. One of the main learning goals is “integration”,
operationalized when students develop a problem-driven, creative, and integrative
design, resulting in an original and validated prototype that balances desirability, feasi-
bility, and viability. Rather than lectures, the course involves studio-style group work,
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 7 of 23

self-study, and personal and team development. Out-of-the-box pressure-cooker-

style workshops are given, either online or offline. Topics include pitching ideas,
project management, interdisciplinary team building, or developing questions from
ill-defined problems. Students are in the lead of their learning processes. Instructors
take on the role of coaches in a supportive and co-learning manner. The course is part
of educational innovation in TU/e Innovation Space.
• DCU hackathon academic intervention. A multidisciplinary and fully online hackathon
for First Year science undergraduate students was carried out in 2022. This event
was planned, developed, and delivered within a shared module—CS150 Interdisci-
plinary Science & BE112 Professional Skills for Scientists and Engineers—to support
the development of a range of skills in students in addition to their disciplinary
knowledge. A total of 227 students participated in the hackathon challenge set up
to mimic a typically fast-paced, intense hackathon experience. Students collabo-
rated intensively over three days to identify an essential question based on a ‘big
idea’ of interest, investigate it as a team, and create a solution they ultimately had
to present in an elevator pitch. Academics and teaching assistants were available
at designated times to support students in teasing out and developing their solu-
tions. The elevator pitches were attended by stakeholders from other areas of the
university who acted as judges and provided constructive feedback on the presenta-
tions of a generally high standard. The hackathon utilized various innovative tools
and technologies from the DCU Virtual Learning Environment and beyond. Edu-
cators should be committed to leading the students to develop competencies and
skills that will awaken them in critically evaluating and developing strategies for
their future: “engagement, groupwork co-operation, problem-solving ability, vision
broadening, awareness of real-world problems... to summarise, learning” (https:
//www.dcu.ie/teu/edge-discovery-podcast-series, accessed on 15 January 2023).
• SJTU brief course description. Engineering Practice is a compulsory practical course
for all engineering students (mainly first-year students) launched by the Student
Innovation Center of SJTU and jointly developed by interdisciplinary teachers and
educational researchers. It follows the principle of “student-centered” teaching, with
two types of projects: “propositional” and “open-ended”, which are based on students’
interests. The projects focus on developing core skills such as analysis, synthesis,
logical reasoning, critical thinking, and problem-solving. In addition, SJTU has built
traditional practice spaces, modern manufacturing practice spaces, and electronic and
electrical laboratories, creating 7 × 24 h open practice space, and established practice
platforms with famous domestic enterprises to guide students to pay attention to social
hotspots and technology frontiers based on the basic knowledge of the curriculum, to
explore innovative ideas, methods and solve practical problems. In terms of teaching,
it consolidates students’ theoretical basis and skill foundation, strengthens their inno-
vation ability through project practice, establishes an online modular resource library,
adopts the teaching mode of “large class lecture + small class guidance”, and focuses
on process-oriented and diverse learning assessment of students.

3.2. Vertical Dimension: Roles and Attitudes

Table 3 compares the four case studies, referring to the role of instructors and their atti-
tude regarding the implementation of CBL and the attitude of students. Next to instructors
and students, CBL possibly knows a third kind of actor: non-academic actors, also known
in the literature as external stakeholders [17].
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 8 of 23

Table 3. Comparison of the CBL implementation aspects in the four case studies.

Case Study TEC TU/e DCU SJTU

Instructors in the role
of coaches who Interdisciplinary;
Interdisciplinary;
supervise knowledge faculty must have
collaborative and Instructors are open to
acquisition and accomplishments in
versatile. Instructors change; willing to
competence both academia and
become designers, explore CBL. CBL
development. industry; must
coordinators, advisors, requires planning and
Instructors’ role and Engagement in CBL organize and
lecturers, and support, resources, and
attitude implementation understand the
evaluators. trust in students.
through bottom-up direction of project
To decrease Multiple professional
experiments, implementation and
overwhelming, some learning options are
involvement in a CBL provide timely
institutional guidelines available to staff.
task force, and guidance to students’
have been developed.
allowing variety in problems.
interpreting CBL.
Resisted frustration for High motivation and
not solving the anxiety for open and CBL stimulates
challenge due to lack of complex challenges. Students are optimistic students’ interest and
clarity, time, or high Over time this anxiety about CBL and value ability to use
Student attitudes
complexity, presenting decreases as students engaging in authentic information, learn
high-stress levels, even develop knowledge experiences. independently, and
when students received and skills for solving work in teams
high grades. the challenge.
Agent or entity from
the manufacturing or
services sector, The role of
government, civil An innovation Space as stakeholders is limited
society, or community an innovation hub was and unclear. Subject
groups with which the created to facilitate The industry leaders can organize
institution establishes a collaboration with the contributes in the form training by relevant
long-term collaboration industry. Stakeholders of lightning master experts, conduct
Role of stakeholders
link. They receive a guide students classes, keynote interdisciplinary
fresh and external throughout the project, speakers, mentors, and exchanges, and provide
perspective for help in judges. guidance through
innovation, reach decision-making, or by classroom observation
student talent, and resource provision. and data-driven
identify trends in the feedback.
organization’s
development.

3.2.1. Instructors’ Role and Attitudes

In Tecnologico de Monterrey, CBL made the role of instructors more collaborative and
versatile. Faculty provide relevant situations for students’ education and dedicate time to re-
lationships with stakeholders to add value to the challenges. Instructors become designers,
coordinators, advisors, professors, and evaluators [44]. Because all these roles overwhelmed
them at the beginning of the CBL implementation, collaborative networks [45] have encour-
aged reflection and feedback, which positively account for embracing the new educational
model [46]. Furthermore, these networks are reported to tackle coordination obstacles,
help adopt new didactic tools and design, think out of the box [47], and support beyond
teaching [48].
All instructors have also been trained in CBL implementation as the essential element
of curricular design. Workshop sessions on CBL were held by The Center of Educational
Development and Innovation and include content modularization and development, CBL
theory, competence evaluation, technological tools [48], fostering teamwork and interest in
self-development [49], and development of skills such as critical thinking, collaborative
work, problem-solving, and ethics [50].
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 9 of 23

At TU/e, a collaborative network of instructors and researchers has been established

to collect and share evidence contributing to the CBL implementation. Additionally, instruc-
tors were engaged in CBL implementation through bottom-up experiments, involvement
in a CBL task force, and allowing variety in interpreting CBL. Some instructors experienced
reluctance caused by insecurity in moving to student-centered education and doubts about
ensuring the development of rigorous discipline knowledge [51].
To decrease instructors’ reluctance and increase their engagement, an instrument la-
beled ‘CBL compass’ was developed to map CBL characteristics in courses and projects [10].
These characteristics include educational vision, teaching and learning, and facilities and
support. The instrument aims to start reflection and dialogue about implementing CBL
aspects in a course or project rather than benchmarking courses on their level of CBL. The
CBL characteristics from the compass were then translated into design principles, which
helped the implementation of CBL itself [52]. These design principles establish a common
ground among all CBL experiments without inhibiting the instructors’ creativity. They offer
a helpful framework for faculty to identify what is essential in their course (vision) and
help them to redesign their teaching and learning approach and determine what sources of
support are needed. However, design principles are intended “to help others select and
apply the most appropriate substantive and procedural knowledge for specific design and
development tasks in their own settings” [53] rather than being “recipes for success” [52].
In the case of DCU, faculty have been more open to change. The Teaching Enhance-
ment Unit (TEU) is encouraged by the instructors’ openness to using the recommended
CBL framework, structure, and approach. CBL implementation is very resource-intensive
for the TEU. They have a central and active role in advancing CBL application across the
university. In addition to a calendar of CBL workshops and regular meetings to facilitate
sharing CBL experiences across the university, they established and Chair the DCU CBL
Working Group. The CBL Working Group report to the DCU Education Committee and has
tightly defined Terms of Reference (TOR) to guide the work and membership. The group
comprises academic representation from all five faculties, student and student support,
and a learning designer from DCU Studio. The working group is responsible for advancing
formal procedures, guidance, and support for academic staff. This includes developing
a DCU-oriented definition of CBL and designing a CBL learning pathway to guide the
implementation of CBL over time. This pathway is being co-designed via a design sprint
workshop with academics to co-create a pathway from Year One to the Final Year. Feedback
from this sprint is currently being analyzed and formally written up and will culminate in a
graphic or visual to represent the CBL pathway in DCU. In 2022, TEU also ran a successful
hackathon for academics [54] to give staff new to this form of CBL a practical experience of
a hackathon in action.
In China, the Student Innovation Centre of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (sjtu.edu.cn,
accessed on 23 July 2022) advocates for interdisciplinary education; it focuses on developing
core skills such as analysis, synthesis, logical reasoning, critical thinking, and problem-
solving. The Centre emphasizes integrated learning and the application of knowledge;
thus, students must consciously develop their knowledge of professional theories, frontier
knowledge, and knowledge of related disciplines to solve practical problems. Therefore,
faculty must have accomplishments in both academia and industry.
Implementing CBL prioritizes students’ autonomy; however, during project implemen-
tation, instructors should organize and understand the direction of project implementation
and provide timely guidance to students’ problems. The interactive classroom requires
faculty to demonstrate high classroom management and organizational skills, such as
ensuring classroom discipline and handling divergent thinking. The preparation of in-
structors in developing CBL is crucial for student learning. The level of work increases
since it has been shown that training students in practical group work results in a better
CBL experience [55]. It is recommended that instructors make a clear statement of course
expectations to avoid student frustration.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 10 of 23

3.2.2. Student’s Attitude

Through interactions with faculty, peers, and stakeholders, students learn to interrelate
with the world around them, opening their possibilities to apply the knowledge acquired
to benefit society. Students’ knowledge gained in CBL experiences is often higher than in
traditional education. However, faculty training and definition of sub-competencies and
evaluation instruments are essential to successfully developing challenges [19].
Each of the four cases shows how frustration and anxiety have been factors that
students have had to overcome in implementing CBL [51]. Nonetheless, students have
obtained better grades and the skills and competencies declared in many CBL courses.
Therefore, CBL appears helpful in this regard. Students’ attitude towards CBL has been
determined amongst others by the participation of the stakeholders in the challenges.
In the case of Tecnologico de Monterrey, some challenges have immersed the students
in real-life challenges of world-leading companies (namely Boehringer Ingelheim, Covestro,
and Becton–Dickinson), where challenges have been designed by company members
and faculty [17]. Other nationwide challenges have needed the participation of 3000 to
4000 students on different campuses to solve the challenges of some companies, creating
proposals to strengthen the marketing strategy and the business model. Winners had the
experience of presenting their recommendations to senior executives of the corporations of
these companies [23].
At TU/e, students in CBL courses reported high motivation and anxiety for open and
complex challenges [51]. Over time, this anxiety decreases as students develop knowledge
and skills for solving the challenge. Students also reported a need for a precise mapping
of learning goals to activities and assessment because often it appeared unclear how and
on what criteria they were assessed. However, students reported support in developing
ownership, self-directed learning, and collaborative learning. In this context, faculty ask
for competence development in supporting students, especially assessing and integrating
discipline knowledge.
At DCU, students reported enjoying the challenges and the opportunity they offered
them to engage with the industry. In one example, the relationship with the partner, Carbon
Intensive Regions in Transition, was core to a successful output [56]. The partner, Eastern
Midlands Region Assembly (EMRA), was so impressed with the final outputs—report,
elevator pitch video, and infographic—that they invited the students to present at an
international conference in this space. DCU business students (100+ per day, 600 in total)
who participated in the Hack4Change social innovation hackathon over five days were
generally very positive about their experience [57]. While some students report anxiety
around the uncertainty of CBL, the TEU works hard to support academics and scaffold the
CBL experience to reduce students’ sense of unease.
Having agency in refining the challenge and working in groups sustained and motivated
students, as some mentioned: “without good interest in the topic and good relationships with
teammates, it would have been difficult to finish the project”. In general, the ECIU students
were very positive about their experiences “I learned a lot, especially about managing and
organizing”. Within DCU Futures’ experience, students reported similar feedback to ECIU
and Hack4Change. In addition, they said they are used to more certainty and structure in the
approach, although it should be mentioned that these were first-year students.
In the case of China, the few available evaluation case studies indicated that CBL
stimulates students’ interest and ability to use information, learn independently, and work
in teams. Therefore, integrating curriculum structure and teaching design in Chinese uni-
versities with CBL has effectively improved students’ competitiveness. It is recommended
that faculty make a clear statement of course expectations to avoid student frustration.
Students choose CBL courses because approximate real-world situations are flexible, chal-
lenging, and intellectually stimulating. Moreover, CBL teaching is mainly applied in group
practice courses since collaborating in groups can provide a sense of accomplishment and
improve group communication, making it effective in national and international university
research competitions. To our knowledge, only a few works regard the student experience
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 11 of 23

on CBL [43,55]. Studies report the need for more research on CBL, working in smaller
groups, and more financial resource and administrative support for the initiative. On the
other hand, studies have indicated deeper learning in course subjects, as well as an increase
in self-directed, creative, and innovative skills [55,58].

3.2.3. Role of Stakeholders

The involvement of non-academic actors as stakeholders is considered an important
characteristic of CBL and partly of PBL [10]. CBL engages students by involving stake-
holders from academia, industry, or the societal context [13]. A distinction can be made
between (1) university-developed challenges, reflecting little collaboration with external
stakeholders, and (2) challenges brought and actively supported by stakeholders [17]. This
distinction supports variety in the scope and complexity of challenges.
In CBL, the aim is for students to be able to face learning experiences from a local,
national, or international scenario. Challenges must be relevant to the industry or other
organizations at the local level to develop competencies. Thus, at Tecnologico de Monterrey,
the role of an external education partner was created. This is an agent or entity from the
manufacturing or services sector, government, civil society, or community groups with
which the institution establishes a long-term collaboration link to meet challenges [18].
External stakeholders receive a fresh and external perspective for innovation, reach student
talent, identify trends in the organization’s development, and contribute to transformation
by training entrepreneurial leaders [59].
To facilitate collaboration with industry at TU/e, a learning hub and expertise center
for CBL and entrepreneurship education called innovation Space was created [60]. Its
approach and ecosystem facilitate an open and interdisciplinary community where students,
faculty, researchers, and stakeholders create and share knowledge on the design and
solution of challenges and CBL research. One of the goals is to facilitate collaboration
with industry by, for instance, linking education to practice and boosting students to
have a tangible impact on their projects. Training is tailored to students for topics such
as entrepreneurship or 3D printing. TU/e innovation Space is characterized by an inter-
program collaboration and multi-stakeholder involvement for, amongst others, assessment.
External stakeholders influence learning by, for example, guiding students throughout
the project implementation and towards achieving the project’s outcomes of students,
helping in making decisions on project execution, or by resource provision [61]. The
innovation Space courses are interdisciplinary, challenge-based, hands-on (i.e., learning by
doing, developing a prototype or minimal viable product), requiring an entrepreneurial
mindset (i.e., dealing with uncertainty, taking entrepreneurial aspects into account), and
contributing to personal and team development.
DCU Business School has a strong relationship with the industry and were able to
secure contributions in the form of lightning master classes, keynote speaker, mentors, and
judges. Industry involvement was central to the success of the Hack4Change series [57]
because it created an authentic opportunity for students to showcase their learning to
potential employers, an opportunity they valued. The DCU Futures project calls on industry
and research partners to contribute to the CBL experience. Industry involvement in year
one primarily includes guest speakers and submission of challenge ideas. As the students
progress through their degrees, the industry will be expected to play a more central role,
particularly in the final year.
Discipline leaders play a crucial role in promoting CBL in China. Only by recognizing
the advantages of CBL education and supervising curriculum reform can schools promote
CBL more thoroughly. Schools can also guide and encourage research by receiving funding
from the Board of Education, which provides the opportunity to study relevant research
abroad and attend or organize various academic conferences. There is a need for studies that
report improvements in learning using CBL with a stakeholder contribution in the Asian
context. Subject leaders and heads of departments must decide on the implementation of
CBL, curriculum design, faculty recruitment and regularly conduct teaching and research.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 12 of 23

Faculty require the proper resources to be skilled in CBL teaching. Subject leaders can
organize training by relevant experts, conduct interdisciplinary exchanges, and provide
guidance through classroom observation and data-driven feedback.

3.3. Horizontal Dimension: Success Factors and Opportunity Areas

Table 4 shows the success factors and the areas of opportunity detected in the four
case studies. As can be seen, there is a similarity between the four cases. Many success
factors are centered on the cultural change permeating the university ecosystem. However,
successful educational change needs a supportive environment [62]. The main requirement
is the commitment of faculty and students to test and continue the CBL framework. This
also requires funding and the involvement of stakeholders in creating engaging challenges.
To achieve this, work must be achieved on implementing technology in the classroom and
the lifelong learning paradigm, allowing students, faculty, and companies to generate an in-
novative problem-solving ecosystem. Raising awareness of the advantages of CBL through
further research and dissemination of successful results is also an area of opportunity.

Table 4. Success factors and opportunity areas of CBL implementation in the four case studies.

Case Study TEC TU/e DCU SJTU

University’s Increased awareness of
CBL is a keystone in the
Availability of funds to commitment to CBL at the fact that CBL can
educational model.
experiment with and the highest level. improve students’
Faculty commitment to
research aspects of CBL. Faculty are keen to skills. CBL is
Success Factors strengthening
Organization of a CBL explore and interested considered an enabler
competencies. Creation
program. Strong in CBL. Teaching of the reinvention of
and solution of
faculty support staff Enhancement Unit the traditional class
international challenges.
(TEU) support paradigm.
Overcome
Faculty must take risk in Students are
instructor-reported Resolve questions
the use of technology in accustomed to the
feelings of insecurity. regarding the time and
the classroom. traditional learning
Opportunity areas Unfamiliarity with range of support
Enhancement of the system. More work
stakeholders and how needed for CBL.
lifelong learning regarding CBL is
to engage them in Faculty engagement.
paradigm. needed.
student scaffolding

3.3.1. Success Factors

The four cases each reflect that commitment at the university level, or even the national
level, is essential for a successful CBL implementation. In the CBL implementation in Tecno-
logico de Monterrey, students and faculty adjust to the new educational model. The open
innovation paradigm pushed the academic community to embrace relations and communicate
with society and stakeholders. A fearful panorama during the first years of the implementation
was overcome, resulting in CBL being the keystone in the educational model.
In China recently, authorities emphasized that learning is the center of teaching
activities, students are the main body of learning, and the purpose of teaching is for students
to learn more efficiently through scientific and advanced teaching methods. Rethinking
how institutions work has been promoted in China as a trend through policymaking, such
as Made in China 2025, the 13th Five Year Plan, Internet Plus, and Belt and Road Initiative,
to produce critical thinkers and makers who thrive in China’s evolving economy.
At TU/e, university commitment is found in combining bottom-up innovations with
a top-down CBL program. This university-wide program facilitates and monitors CBL
experiments. The CBL research agenda as part of this program is the guiding document for
research on principles of CBL, student learning behavior and learning outcomes, didacti-
cal/pedagogical aspects of CBL, and facilitating structures [63].
Any innovation knows an initial stage of reluctance. In the four cases, most faculty
have become committed to strengthening their understanding and competencies, preparing
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 13 of 23

challenges to solve real-world problems, and testing them [64,65]. At DCU, traction and
interest in CBL across the university are reported to be high. Academics are keen to explore
and understand it better.
At TU/e, faculty commitment was supported by the availability of funds to exper-
iment with and research aspects of CBL. Over 40 faculty-initiated CBL experiments are
being conducted in various departments and institutes [52]. These experiments show
different CBL characteristics and implementations, ranging from small-scale assignments
to curriculum-wide initiatives consisting of open-ended, complex challenges presented
by stakeholders and focusing on self-directed learning and interdisciplinary skills. This
flexible and diverse approach of CBL enables the adjustment to different contexts and
subject areas. In addition, the redesign of the bachelor engineering programs TU/e-wide
includes a CBL curriculum line in all graduate engineering study programs.
Significant funding also ensures commitment to CBL over the coming years at DCU.
The ECIU current project ended in October 2022, and a new proposal has been entered for
significant funding to advance the work undertaken in CBL and innovative pedagogies.
Perhaps even more center stage in DCU is the remaining years of the DCU Futures project,
where CBL forms a core part of the innovative pedagogy.
The challenges created by faculty members at Tecnologico de Monterrey have tran-
scended institutional and geographic borders, reaching other universities [66,67] and sig-
nificantly increasing students’ skills (i.e., collaboration and negotiation effectiveness) [23].
In China, the Student Innovation Centre of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (sjtu.edu.cn,
accessed on 23 July 2022) focuses on developing core skills such as analysis, synthesis,
logical reasoning, critical thinking, and problem-solving. The Centre emphasizes inte-
grated learning and the application of knowledge; thus, students must consciously develop
their knowledge of professional theories, frontier knowledge, and knowledge of related
disciplines to solve practical problems.
Another success factor is research to make impact measurable. DCU faculty are keen
to explore and understand CBL better, but some still need more evidence of its impact
to adopt it. Large research programs at TU/e and Tecnologico de Monterrey support the
development and implementation of CBL. The IFE of Tecnologico de Monterrey aims to
offer a platform for deploying these studies and strengthening impact assessment strategies
integrated into the educational model to transform education [18]. Potential efforts and
suggestions to accomplish this goal are, for example, investments in digital technology [68]
and scalable challenge living-lab platforms, integrate different sectors, stakeholders, and
communities, based on interconnected technology and socio-cultural and Quality of Life
impact while providing an educational framework in which students are highly motivated,
engaged, and prepared to tackle different problems that involve government, community,
industry, and academia [69–72].
Despite funding and research, instructors might not always feel competent enough
for their new role in CBL [51,52]. Scholars have increasingly noted that CBL can im-
prove students’ abilities to engage in autonomous learning, problem-solving, and critical
thinking [73–75]. It is also an innovative enabler approach that has driven the reinvention of
the traditional classroom paradigm [76]. CBL is conceptually straightforward but challeng-
ing to implement. It is more demanding than traditional methods. For example, in China,
frustration has become the norm among students largely accustomed to traditional learning
systems [75]. Implementing CBL prioritizes students’ autonomy; it requires instructors to
demonstrate classroom management and organizational skills, such as ensuring classroom
discipline and handling divergent thinking.
At TU/e, a strong support staff provides pedagogical input for instructors and advice
on educational technology and tools. Because TU/e allows flexibility in CBL, this creates
various CBL implementations for each discipline. This variety is influenced by instructors’
perceptions and operationalizations of CBL and responds to a conscious choice to adopt CBL
and its characteristics flexibly. Support staff should understand the respective disciplines
and intended CBL characteristics. Despite the newness of CBL, DCU faculty report that
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 14 of 23

the Teaching Enhancement Unit (TEU) is invaluable in supporting them in rolling out CBL.
TEU has developed a comprehensive implementation guide, glossary, case studies, and a
CBL Virtual Learning Environment Hub.

3.3.2. Opportunity Areas

In contemporary education, faculty should manage technologies, communicate ef-
fectively and efficiently with students, and evaluate skills development [77]. Moreover,
technology is a keystone in education, so this must be considered when betting for CBL [76].
At Tecnologico de Monterrey, faculty reported fear of taking the risk of using technology
in the classroom, a lack of procedures and on-site support, and a need for more training.
Similarly, instructors reported feelings of insecurity and a lack of competence regarding
coaching tasks at TU/e [51]. There are questions about the time required to plan such
events and the range of support needed for success, which may be difficult for a publicly
funded institution such as DCU to resolve.
Thus, at Tecnologico de Monterrey, intensive courses have been designed for faculty
to overcome these obstacles. This goes hand in hand with the rest of the Education
4.0 paradigms, in which universities must prepare faculty to be lifelong learners [59],
promoting curiosity, motivation, and perseverance among instructors [78].
There are also questions about how academics can support all types of students to
succeed in such a fast-paced environment. The authenticity of learning activities is strength-
ened by stakeholders from academia, industry, governmental partners, or NGOs, who
serve as ‘challenge owners’, framing the real-world problem to address. These stakeholders
support student learning by defining the challenge, giving feedback in most cases [79], and
transferring expertise [80]. Possible obstacles here are the unfamiliarity of stakeholders and
faculty with CBL and how to engage stakeholders in student scaffolding or assessment.
The teaching model implemented in Chinese universities is subject-centered, and
a systematically structured curriculum ensures that students have sound professional
knowledge. The knowledge gained from such a structured curriculum may restrict the
student’s ability to transfer knowledge, making it inefficient for the practical application
of knowledge.
In the third case study, at DCU, one of the main obstacles is the absence of a CBL
unit or innovative pedagogy lab where initiatives such as this can be researched and
evaluated, despite the high-level commitment and funding. Although academic developers
in the TEU offer CBL support, it is limited in its ability to provide robust evidence-based
research that will help convince more reticent academics. The educational developers are
upskilling through engagement with the literature, working with colleagues in ECIU, and
other more informal collaborations with the Eindhoven University of Technology and the
Tec de Monterrey.
After COVID-19, the need to modify the way of teaching became clear. The main
concern focused on the sudden change from face-to-face to digital education. In this
sense, some researchers have considered the contributions of CBL in designing new online
teaching practices [81,82]. The proposal is to implement real scenarios and multi-faceted
pedagogical practices using ICTs to empower students to obtain more profound durable
learning skills and interaction [81]. These practices must include more technical support
and faculty training in academic targets [82]. This leads to theoretical and administrative
implications that the leaders of the institutions must consider.

4. Discussion
Responding to the first research question: How do different universities implement
CBL? Figures 1–4 show four flowcharts representing the four cases studied in this work.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23
Educ. Sci. 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23

4.
4. Discussion
Discussion
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 Responding 15 of 23
Responding to to the
the first
first research
research question:
question: How
How dodo different
different universities
universities implement
implement
CBL?
CBL? Figures
Figures 1–4
1–4 show
show four
four flowcharts
flowcharts representing
representing the
the four
four cases
cases studied
studied in
in this
this work.
work.

Figure1.1.Schematic
Figure Schematicflowchart
flowchart
ofof
CBLCBL implementation
implementation process
process by Tecnologico
by Tecnologico de Monterrey.
de Monterrey.
Figure 1. Schematic flowchart of CBL implementation process by Tecnologico de Monterrey.

Figure 2. Schematic flowchart of CBL implementation process by the Eindhoven University of Technology.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 23

Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 16 of 23

Figure 2. Schematic flowchart of CBL implementation process by the Eindhoven University of Tech-
nology.

Figure3.3.Schematic
Figure Schematicflowchart
flowchart
of of
CBLCBL implementation
implementation process
process by Dublin
by Dublin City City University.
University.

Figure4.4.Schematic
Figure Schematicflowchart
flowchart
of of
CBLCBL implementation
implementation process
process by Shanghai
by Shanghai Jiao Tong
Jiao Tong University.
University.

One
Onewaywaytoto implement
implementCBL is vertically
CBL is verticallypermeating the University’s
permeating vision vision
the University’s (Figure(Figure
1).
In this case, it is considered that there is a broad relationship with relevant parties.
1). In this case, it is considered that there is a broad relationship with relevant parties. This This
top-down
top-downsystem
systemcan canbecome
becomechaotic
chaoticif there areare
if there no no
support tools
support for faculty
tools and and
for faculty students,
students,
which
whichrequires
requiresa aconsiderable
considerableinvestment
investment of resources in training
of resources instructors
in training accustomed
instructors accustomed
to
to aanon-student-centered
non-student-centeredteaching
teaching system.
system. Another
Another way wayof implementation
of implementation is inisanin an
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 17 of 23

iterative process—top-down and bottom-up (Figure 2). In this case, the concept of CBL
is developing within the University ecosystem, considering the results of educational
innovations implemented by students and faculty in a space designed for this purpose. In
an iterative exchange with the regional and national ecosystem, consisting of companies,
NGOs, and governmental bodies, a snowball effect is created in which faculty, students,
and stakeholders come together to solve significant challenges for the community. The
mushrooming of pilots and experiments boosted a fruitful proliferation of educational
experiences with CBL allowing a meaningful construction of CBL as a concept.
Another form of implementation observed in this work is that the very definition of
the University involves a type of experiential teaching and a soul of challenges, such as CBL
(Figure 3); generally, in relatively young universities, this process is also iterative. However,
the size of the university could cause a need for more resources for CBL implementation.
In this case, the snowball effect and the communication of successful results become more
important so that more instructors and students are involved in this type of learning.
Finally, the transformation of educational systems has occurred in a brief period due
to the needs of the new generations of students in a world where population growth is
accelerated, impacting the use of resources, and requiring more significant differentiation,
in addition to the advent of the digital era. Implementing approaches such as CBL in
universities has required a gradual cultural change. For most Chinese university teachers,
the preference for PBL is caused by CBL being new to them. However, in communities
where technology has made considerable advances, such as China, the shift to approaches
such as CBL in the teaching-learning system is inevitable. A fourth possible implementation
approach could be that of Figure 4.
The Chinese Ministry of Education has suggested that Chinese colleges and uni-
versities should actively incorporate best practices and pedagogy in higher education
worldwide, such as the PBL and CBL frameworks. The teaching Enhancement Unit (TEU)
is constructed by organizing interdisciplinary talents (teachers), utilizing group wisdom,
and combining multiple professional fields. It includes the creation of problem situations,
the development of resources, and the construction of innovative spaces. These facilitate the
faculty to guide students to apply knowledge in practice, projects, and competitions based
on their interests and ability levels and to identify problems and give guidance promptly
through classroom observation and data-driven feedback. In addition, organizations such
as the Student Innovation Centre of SJTU (https://si.sjtu.edu.cn/home, accessed 23 July
2022) can also directly support students’ learning. During the process, faculty and students
provide feedback to TEU for further optimization (See Figure 4).
However, whether top-down or bottom-up, in all four cases, the response from faculty
and students has been similar: at the beginning, there was frustration and a sense of being
overwhelmed owing to an increased workload. The participation of stakeholders is a crucial
element in the successful implementation of CBL. This gives a sense of accomplishment
when the students are aware of their solutions’ impact on industry and society. Besides,
applying the acquired knowledge in the early stages of university studies ensures student
engagement to culminate in their degree.
This leads to answering our second research question: How is CBL a good strategy
for developing skills and competencies in higher education students? Universities are
committed to providing knowledge and well-being to society; they are expected to comply
with a social responsibility for educating professionals and institutions’ collaboration and
paying attention to community needs [83]. Implementing CBL means that students receive
training in higher-order thinking, where the emphasis is on cultivating and developing
students’ core competencies. Students choose CBL courses because approximate real-world
situations are flexible, challenging, and intellectually stimulating.
Moreover, CBL can improve group communication, making it effective nationally
and internationally. When working on challenges, students could achieve unfavorable
or unexpected results; however, it is essential to remember that unsuccessful solutions
and implementations are potential sources of experiences and learning that contribute
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 18 of 23

to training skills development. It is also vital to incorporate metacognitive activities that

support the analysis and reflection of learning experiences regardless of the results.
The students’ challenges in their future professional environments demand skills that
transcend traditional academic settings [84]. However, students usually are not accustomed
to exposure to real and unstructured problems requiring non-pre-defined solutions. Thus,
competencies must be developed to tolerate and reduce uncertainty [85]. Some of these
competencies are developed through CBL.
In the case of Tec de Monterrey and TU/e, the proposal is to establish sustainable
thinking for the coming years. We expect that in the following years, CBL will become the
vehicle to prepare students to provide emerging solutions to global problems. Therefore,
networking among universities and compiling joint efforts to investigate the benefits of CBL
in education will bring exciting results in preparing forthcoming generations of students.
In the DCU context, the primary objective of CBL is to develop skills and competencies
in students. We increasingly recognize resource implications with implementing CBL,
particularly at scale. More evidence to justify resource expenditure is necessary and will
require substantial research investment in the near and distant future. In the Chinese
context, there is a gap in the transition between PBL and CBL.
Recent studies have shown that CBL offers significant advantages over the traditional
way of teaching compared to PBL. The leap between the two approaches can occur in the
degree to which faculty trust digital technologies to prepare and deliver academic content.
In this sense, the support of the government and the heads of the universities will be vital
in the speed at which we approach an education aimed at solving the challenges that the
future holds for us, where technology is relevant.
In all cases, the implementation of CBL opens avenues for future directions that can
be considered for its implementation. Firstly, because of its flexible embedding in the
curriculum, CBL can be molded to each discipline. This interpretation of CBL promotes a
platform for curriculum design accompanying the development of knowledge and skills.
Secondly, a CBL program will provide direction and structure to university-wide CBL
activities in education and research, facilitating a rapid acceptance and dissemination of
CBL throughout educational programs and all the university’s layers. Furthermore, the role
of innovation Spaces or playgrounds to experiment with CBL from a broader perspective,
as in the case of TU/e, could supply good research and experimentation opportunities.
In this sense, the bottom-up stimulation of experiments assures acceptance, diminishes
feelings of a top-down process, and informs the university executive board in deciding
the next steps of CBL throughout the university. Finally, broad approaches to carrying out
innovations on CBL create an excellent platform to introduce innovations, as there could be
drastic changes, for instance, in assessment for and as learning.

Study Limitations and Future Work

Our study was limited by the number of included cases. Although the cases were
selected based on maximum variation [22] aiming to explore CBL implementations, more
cases could yield a richer description on multiple dimensions. Future research should add
to this descriptive approach to CBL curriculum development.
The CCS method allowed us to answer each case’s research question. Our research
approach also yields relevant aspects of CBL implementation that support faculty and
educational management in considering CBL for their specific context. However, in our
effort to compare CBL implementations from an educational perspective, we limited the
included aspects. Examples of such elements are funding, regulations, productivity indica-
tors, timeframes, or evaluation strategies, as well as the level of involvement of stakeholders
within the implementation process (time, human resources, economic resources, external
resources, or facilities that are used for the students, the intellectual property clauses,
among others). From a positivistic viewpoint, future research could focus on these aspects
in different settings, with the aim of generalizing results.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 19 of 23

5. Conclusions
Through this manuscript, it has been shown that there is a growing interest in universi-
ties worldwide in the assimilation of change. This change focuses on solving the challenges
that we face around the world, which can well be represented in sustainable development
goals. However, given that it is an empirical work, some limitations should be addressed.
For instance, only four countries were compared at different levels of CBL implementations
and with different aims. Future research should be accomplished to include more countries
(with a preference for the Southern Hemisphere) and make an inventory with an interview
guideline or survey.
Lastly, a high capacity for adaptation and innovation is required in the face of an
uncertain future. Betting on CBL constitutes a frontline in university education as an
indication of progress toward developing professionals with the necessary skills to face the
industry’s requirements. CBL turns university institutions into critical elements of society,
in which there should be an ecosystem of cooperation for the development of solutions, in
which the student chooses and manages their learning in a guided manner by professors
who, with their experience and knowledge, in addition to the participation of stakeholders,
provide it with the necessary tools to be successful.
Five aspects can be distinguished [76] that should be applied to education in gen-
eral, considering the significant changes in the world (i.e., climate change, digitization):
(1) driving innovation is a top responsibility of universities; (2) real-world skills are needed
to deepen learning outcomes and prepare students for the workforce; (3) there is a gap
between technology and pedagogy; educators require ongoing professional development
and support; (4) artificial intelligence is driving greater personalization and efficiency; and
(5) online, mobile, and blended learning are inevitable. In response to these challenges,
CBL is an excellent bet for changing the educational paradigm throughout this CCS.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.v.d.B., S.G.P., F.O. and J.M.-H.; Data curation, A.v.d.B.
and P.V.-V.; Formal analysis, A.v.d.B. and P.V.-V.; Investigation, A.v.d.B., P.V.-V., S.G.P., F.O., C.G.,
F.-K.C., C.L. and P.C.; Methodology, A.v.d.B.; Resources, F.O., C.G. and F.-K.C.; Software, P.V.-V.;
Supervision, J.M.-H.; Validation, S.G.P. and F.O.; Visualization, P.V.-V.; Writing—original draft, A.v.d.B.
and P.V.-V.; Writing—review and editing, A.v.d.B., P.V.-V., S.G.P., F.O., C.G., F.-K.C., C.L., P.C., G.Z.
and J.M.-H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of Writing Lab,
Institute for the Future of Education, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico, in the production of this work.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Cavanaugh, C. Project-Based Learning in Undergraduate Educational Technology. In Proceedings of the SITE 2004—Society
for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 1–6 March 2004; Association
for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE): Waynesville, NC, USA, 2004; pp. 2010–2016. Available online:
https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/14733/ (accessed on 15 May 2022).
2. Karaman, S.; Celik, S. An Exploratory Study on the Perspectives of Prospective Computer Teachers Following Project-Based
Learning. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2008, 18, 203–215. [CrossRef]
3. Rugarcia, A.; Felder, R.M.; Woods, D.R.; Stice, J.E. The Future of Engineering Education: Part 1. A Vision for a New Century.
Chem. Eng. Educ. CEE 2000, 34, 16–25.
4. Gómez Puente, S.M.; van Eijck, M.; Jochems, W. Professional Development for Design-Based Learning in Engineering Education:
A Case Study. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2015, 40, 14–31. [CrossRef]
5. Gadola, M.; Chindamo, D. Experiential Learning in Engineering Education: The Role of Student Design Competitions and a Case
Study. Int. J. Mech. Eng. Educ. 2019, 47, 3–22. [CrossRef]
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 20 of 23

6. McCarthy, M. Experiential Learning Theory: From Theory To Practice. JBER 2016, 14, 91–100. [CrossRef]
7. Johnson, L.F.; Smith, R.S.; Smythe, J.T.; Varon, R.K. Challenge-Based Learning: An Approach for Our Time; New Media Consortium:
Austin, TX, USA, 2009.
8. Kolb, A.; Kolb, D. Experiential Learning Theory as a Guide for Experiential Educators in Higher Education. Exp. Learn. Teach.
High. Educ. 2017, 1, 7–44. [CrossRef]
9. Gallagher, S.; Savage, T. Challenge-Based Learning in Higher Education: An Exploratory Literature Review. Teach. High. Educ.
2020, 1–23. [CrossRef]
10. Van den Beemt, A.; Van de Watering, G.; Bots, M. Conceptualising Variety in Challenge-Based Learning in Higher Education: The
CBL-Compass. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2022, 1–18. [CrossRef]
11. Colombari, R.; D’Amico, E.; Paolucci, E. Can Challenge-Based Learning Be Effective Online? A Case Study Using Experiential
Learning Theory. CERN IdeaSquare J. Exp. Innov. 2021, 5, 40–48.
12. Membrillo-Hernández, J.; Ramírez-Cadena, M.d.J.; Caballero-Valdés, C.; Ganem-Corvera, R.; Bustaman-te-Bello, R.; Benjamín-
Ordoñez, J.A.; Elizalde-Siller, H. Challenge-Based Learning: The Case of Sustainable Development Engineering at the Tecnologico
de Monterrey, Mexico City Campus. Int. J. Eng. Pedagog. IJEP 2018, 8, 137–144. [CrossRef]
13. Kohn Rådberg, K.; Lundqvist, U.; Malmqvist, J.; Hagvall Svensson, O. From CDIO to Challenge-Based Learning Experiences—Expanding
Student Learning as Well as Societal Impact? Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2020, 45, 22–37. [CrossRef]
14. Malmqvist, J.; Rådberg, K.K.; Lundqvist, U. Comparative Analysis of Challenge-Based Learning Experiences. In Proceedings of
the 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu, China, 8–11 June 2015.
15. Santos, A.R.; Sales, A.; Fernandes, P.; Nichols, M. Combining Challenge-Based Learning and Scrum Framework for Mobile
Application Development. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science
Education, Vilnius, Lithuania, 4–8 July 2015; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 189–194.
16. Puente, S.G.; Eijck, M.; Jochems, W. Exploring the Effects of Design-Based Learning Characteristics on Teachers and Students. Int.
J. Eng. Educ. 2014, 30, 916–928.
17. Membrillo-Hernández, J.; Ramírez-Cadena, M.J.; Martínez-Acosta, M.; Cruz-Gómez, E.; Muñoz-Díaz, E.; Elizalde, H. Challenge
Based Learning: The Importance of World-Leading Companies as Training Partners. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 2019, 13,
1103–1113. [CrossRef]
18. Olivares, S.L.O.; Islas, J.R.L.; Garín, M.J.P.; Chapa, J.A.R.; Hernández, C.H.A.; Ortega, L.O.P. Tec21 Educational Model: Challenges for
a Transformative Experience; Editorial Digital del Tecnológico de Monterrey: Monterrey, Mexico, 2021.
19. Caratozzolo, P.; Membrillo-Hernández, J. Evaluation of Challenge Based Learning Experiences in Engineering Programs: The
Case of the Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico. In Visions and Concepts for Education 4.0; Auer, M.E., Centea, D., Eds.; Springer
International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 419–428.
20. Leijon, M.; Gudmundsson, P.; Staaf, P.; Christersson, C. Challenge Based Learning in Higher Education—A Systematic Literature
Review. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2022, 59, 609–618. [CrossRef]
21. Bartlett, L.; Vavrus, F. Comparative Case Studies: An Innovative Approach. Nord. J. Comp. Int. Educ. NJCIE 2017, 1, 5–17.
[CrossRef]
22. Flyvbjerg, B. Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research. Qual. Inq. 2006, 12, 219–245. [CrossRef]
23. Tecnologico de Monterrey. Annual Reports. 2021. Available online: https://tec.mx/en/about-us/annual-reports (accessed on
10 June 2022).
24. Murgatroyd, S. Preparing for a Different Future-Learning in an Age of Disruption. Rev. Parag. Educ. Distancia REPED 2020, 1,
27–40.
25. Pérez-Sánchez, E.O.; Chavarro-Miranda, F.; Riano-Cruz, J.D. Challenge-Based Learning: A ‘Entrepreneurship-Oriented’ Teaching
Experience. Manag. Educ. 2020. [CrossRef]
26. Pieprz, D.; Sheth, R. Singapore and Mexico Are Inventing the 21st-Century Campus. Plan. High. Educ. 2017, 45, 90–107.
27. Barragán, M.R. Example of Organization That Adapts to Current Economic and Social Demands. J. Adm. Sci. 2021, 3, 1–5.
[CrossRef]
28. Membrillo-Hernandez, J. Challenge-Based Learning an Emergent Educational Model for Engineering Education in the Post-
COVID Era—IEEE Teaching Excellence Hub. Available online: https://teaching.ieee.org/challenge-based-learning-an-emergent-
educational-model-for-engineering-education-in-the-post-covid-era/ (accessed on 7 August 2022).
29. Gómez Puente, S.M.; Jongeneelen, C.J.M.; Perrenet, J.C. Design-Based Learning in Mechanical Engineering Education. In Project
Approaches to Learning in Engineering Education; de Campos, L.C., Tadeu Dirani, E.A., Manrique, A.L., van Hattum-Janssen, N.,
Eds.; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 89–108. ISBN 978-94-6091-958-9.
30. Gómez Puente, S.M.; van Eijck, M.; Jochems, W. Towards Characterising Design-Based Learning in Engineering Education: A
Review of the Literature. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2011, 36, 137–149. [CrossRef]
31. DCU Office of the Vice-President Academic Affairs. DCU Futures: Reimagining Undergraduate Education for an Unscripted
World. Available online: https://www.dcu.ie/ovpaa/dcu-futures (accessed on 17 September 2022).
32. ECIU European Consortium of Innovative Universities. Available online: https://www.eciu.eu/member/dublin-city-university
(accessed on 17 September 2022).
33. Higher Education Authority Human Capital Initiative. Available online: https://hea.ie/skills-engagement/human-capital-
initiative/ (accessed on 17 September 2022).
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 21 of 23

34. Dublin City University INTRA Internships. Available online: https://www.dcu.ie/intra (accessed on 17 September 2022).
35. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Opinions on Deepening the Reform of Undergraduate Education and
Teaching to Improve the Quality of Talent Training. Available online: http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A08/s7056/201910/t201
91011_402759.html (accessed on 15 October 2022).
36. Chen, T. Training Mode of Innovative Talents in Higher Engineering Education in China. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 2018, 18,
3254–3265. [CrossRef]
37. Cheng, S.Q.; Yang, J.B. The training of innovative talents in universities by university-enterprise cooperation model. Technol.
Innov. Manag. 2011, 32, 507–510.
38. Li, J.C.; Lin, J.L. Promoting the cultivation of innovative talents through combination of practical teaching and academic
competition. Exp. Technol. Manag. 2011, 28, 1–4.
39. Du, B.; Chai, Y.; Huangfu, W.; Zhou, R.; Ning, H. Undergraduate University Education in Internet of Things Engineering in
China: A Survey. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 202. [CrossRef]
40. Statitsa. Number of Public Colleges and Universities in China between 2010 and 2020. Available online: https://www.statista.
com/statistics/226982/number-of-universities-in-china/ (accessed on 15 October 2022).
41. Zhuang, T.; Xu, X. ‘New Engineering Education’ in Chinese Higher Education: Prospects and Challenges. Tuning J. High. Educ.
2018, 6, 69–109. [CrossRef]
42. Zhuang, T.; Cheung, A.C.K.; Tam, W. Modeling Undergraduate STEM Students’ Satisfaction with Their Pro-grams in China: An
Empirical Study. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 2020, 21, 211–225. [CrossRef]
43. Lin, J.; Chen, C.A. Study of Challenge-Based Learning Based on Enhancing Innovative Ability. In Proceedings of the 7th
International Research Symposium on PBL, Beijing, China, 19–21 October 2018; pp. 58–67.
44. Juárez, E.; Aldeco-Pérez, R.; Velázquez, J.M. Academic Approach to Transform Organisations: One Engineer at a Time. IET Softw.
2020, 14, 106–114. [CrossRef]
45. Gamez-Perez, K.; Avilés, E.M.; Rangel, R.R. Teacher’s learning and collaboration using innovative teams: Professional learning
community. Eurasia Proc. Educ. Soc. Sci. 2016, 5, 217–222.
46. Castro, E.; López, I.; Zavala, G. Work in Progress: Social Networks Analysis in the Transition of an Educational Model among
Groups of STEM Teachers. In Proceedings of the 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Tampa, FL, USA, 1 June 2019.
47. Avilés, E.M.; Aguilar, A.G.G.; Rangel, R.R.; Moreno, E.S. Creating Real Learning Experiences Rather than Teaching Based on the
Traditional Transfer of Mathematical Information, at College Level. In Research Highlights in Education and Science 2016; Wu, W.,
Alan, S., Hebebci, M., Eds.; ISRES Publishing: Ames, IA, USA, 2016; pp. 40–47.
48. Caratozzolo, P.; Alvarez-Delgado, A. Education 4.0 Framework: Enriching Active Learning with Virtual and Technological Tools.
In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Education ICEDU, Virtual, 6–8 April 2021; pp. 616–630.
49. Glasserman-Morales, L.D.; Portuguez Castro, M. Analysis of Teaching Work Culture Oriented to the Development of Entrepreneur-
ship Skills. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality
(TEEM’21), Barcelona, Spain, 26–29 October 2021; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 248–253.
50. Membrillo-Hernández, J.; García-García, R. Challenge-Based Learning (CBL) in Engineering: Which Evaluation Instruments Are
Best Suited to Evaluate CBL Experiences? In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON),
Porto, Portugal, 27–30 April 2020; pp. 885–893.
51. Van den Beemt, A.; MacLeod, M.A.J. Tomorrow’s Challenges for Today’s Students: Challenge-Based Learning and Interdis-
ciplinarity. In Proceedings of the 49th SEFI Annual Conference: Blended Learning in Engineering Education: Challenging,
Enlightening—And lasting? SEFI ISEL, Online, 30 November 2021; pp. 578–587.
52. Doulougeri, K.; van den Beemt, A.; Vermunt, J.D.; Bots, M.; Bombaerts, G. Challenge-Based Learning in Engineering Education:
Toward Mapping the Landscape and Guiding Educational Practice. In The Emerald Handbook of Challenge Based Learning; Vilalta-
Perdomo, E., Membrillo-Hernández, J., Michel-Villarreal, R., Lakshmi, G., Martínez-Acosta, M., Eds.; Emerald Publishing Limited:
Bingley, UK, 2022; pp. 35–68. ISBN 978-1-80117-491-6.
53. Van den Akker, J.; Gravemeijer, K.; McKenney, S.; Nieveen, N. Educational Design Research; Taylor & Francis Group: Abingdon,
UK, 2006.
54. DCU Business School. DCU Hackathon. Available online: https://business.dcu.ie/hack4change/ (accessed on 17 September 2022).
55. Tang, A.C.Y.; Chow, M.C.M. Learning Experience of Baccalaureate Nursing Students with Challenge-Based Learning in Hong
Kong: A Descriptive Qualitative Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6293. [CrossRef]
56. European Consortium of Innovative Universities Challenges: Carbon-Intensive Regions in Transition. Available online: https:
//challenges.eciu.org/challenges/2468603/carbon-intensive-regions-in-transition (accessed on 17 September 2022).
57. DCU Business School. DCU Hack4Change; DCU Business School: Dublin, Ireland, 2021.
58. Yang, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Chung, J.W.Y.; Tang, Q.; Jiang, L.; Wong, T.K.S. Challenge Based Learning Nurtures Creative Thinking: An
Evaluative Study. Nurse Educ. Today 2018, 71, 40–47. [CrossRef]
59. Caratozzolo, P.; Friesel, A.; Randewijk, P.J.; Navarro-Duran, D. Virtual Globalization: An Experience for Engineering Students in
the Education 4.0 Framework. In Proceedings of the 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual Conference,
26 July 2021.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 22 of 23

60. Reymen, I.; Bruns, M.; Lazendic-Galloway, J.; Helker, K.; Cardona, A.V.; Vermunt, J.D. Creating a Learning Ecosystem for
Developing, Sustaining, and Disseminating CBL the Case of TU/e Innovation Space. In The Emerald Handbook of Challenge Based
Learning; Vilalta-Perdomo, E., Membrillo-Hernández, J., Michel-Villarreal, R., Lakshmi, G., Martínez-Acosta, M., Eds.; Emerald
Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2022; pp. 13–33. ISBN 978-1-80117-491-6.
61. Brans, C.; Reymen, I.M.M.J.; Valencia Cardona, A.M.; Pepin, B.E.U.; Bruns, M. High Stakes Assessment in Inter-disciplinary
Challenge Based Learning. In Proceedings of the 17th CDIO International Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 21–23 June 2021.
62. Fullan, M. The New Meaning of Educational Change, 5th ed.; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, 2015; ISBN 978-0-8077-5680-5.
63. Van den Beemt, A.; Van de Watering, G.; Bots, M. Organising Evidence Informed Innovation: The Development of a Research
Agenda. In Proceedings of the 50th SEFI Annual Conference, Barcelona, Spain, 19–22 September 2022.
64. Daspro, E. Assessing the Global Readiness of Organizations: An Experiential Approach. In The Palgrave Handbook of Learning
and Teaching International Business and Management; Gonzalez-Perez, M.A., Lynden, K., Taras, V., Eds.; Springer International
Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 243–257. ISBN 978-3-030-20415-0.
65. Gonzalez Almaguer, C.A.; Caballero Montes, E.; Acuña López, A.; Zubieta Ramírez, C.; Saavedra Gastelum, V.; Barbosa Saucedo,
E.A.; Lule Salinas, M. Design Thinking and Design of Experiments: The Fusion of the School of Design and Industrial Engineering to
Create Learning Experiences in the Tec21 Educational Model. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Engineering
and Product Design Education (E&PDE 2021), VIA Design, VIA University, Herning, Denmark, 9–10 September 2021. [CrossRef]
66. Islas, Á.; Franklin Uraga, J.J.; Ortega Pérez, P.; Juárez-Hernández, A.E. Theory of Multiple Intelligences Applied to Teamwork
with Intervention under Challenge-Based Collaborative Learning Strategy for Improvement of Online Learning. Int. J. Educ. Res.
2021, 9, 79–92.
67. Arrambide-Leal, E.J.; Lara-Prieto, V.; García-García, R.M.; Membrillo-Hernández, J. Impact of Active and Challenge Based
Learning with First Year Engineering Students: Mini Drag Race Challenge. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 11th International
Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED), Kanazawa, Japan, 6–7 November 2019; pp. 20–25.
68. Hernandez-de-Menendez, M.; Escobar Díaz, C.A.; Morales-Menendez, R. Educational Experiences with Generation Z. Int. J.
Interact. Des. Manuf. 2020, 14, 847–859. [CrossRef]
69. Huertas, J.I.; Mahlknecht, J.; Lozoya-Santos, J.d.J.; Uribe, S.; López-Guajardo, E.A.; Ramirez-Mendoza, R.A. Campus City Project:
Challenge Living Lab for Smart Cities. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 11085. [CrossRef]
70. López, H.A.; Ponce, P.; Molina, A.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.S.; Lopez-Caudana, E. Design Framework Based on TEC21 Educational
Model and Education 4.0 Implemented in a Capstone Project: A Case Study of an Electric Vehicle Suspension System. Sustainability
2021, 13, 5768. [CrossRef]
71. Salinas-Navarro, D.E.; Garay-Rondero, C.L. Requirements of Challenge Based Learning for Experiential Learning Spaces, an
Industrial Engineering Application Case. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and
Learning for Engineering (TALE), Takamatsu, Japan, 8–11 December 2020; pp. 1–8.
72. Toscano-Alonso, M.; Aguaded, I.; Manotas Salcedo, E.M.; Farias-Gaytán, S.C. Producción audiovisual universitaria: Espacios de
innovación docente en Iberoamérica. Rev. Iberoam. Educ. Distancia 2021, 25, 41–58. [CrossRef]
73. Rodríguez-Chueca, J.; Molina-García, A.; García-Aranda, C.; Pérez, J.; Rodríguez, E. Understanding Sustainability and the Circular
Economy through Flipped Classroom and Challenge-Based Learning: An Innovative Experience in Engineering Education in
Spain. Environ. Educ. Res. 2020, 26, 238–252. [CrossRef]
74. Conde, M.Á.; Rodríguez-Sedano, F.J.; Fernández-Llamas, C.; Gonçalves, J.; Lima, J.; García-Peñalvo, F.J. Fostering STEAM through
Challenge-Based Learning, Robotics, and Physical Devices: A Systematic Mapping Literature Review. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ.
2021, 29, 46–65. [CrossRef]
75. Tang, A.C.Y.; Chow, M.C.M. To Evaluate the Effect of Challenge-Based Learning on the Approaches to Learning of Chinese
Nursing Students: A Quasi-Experimental Study. Nurse Educ. Today 2020, 85, 104293. [CrossRef]
76. Adams Becker, S.; Cummins, M.; Freeman, A.; Rose, K. 2017 NMC Technology Outlook: Nordic Schools. A Horizon Project Regional
Report; New Media Consortium: Austin, TX, USA, 2017.
77. Membrillo-Hernández, J.; García-García, R.; Lara-Prieto, V. From the Classroom to Home: Experiences on the Sudden Transfor-
mation of Face-to-Face Bioengineering Courses to a Flexible Digital Model Due to the 2020 Health Contingency. In Proceedings of
the International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning, Tallinn, Estonia, 23–25 September 2020; pp. 488–494.
78. Matsumoto-Royo, K.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.S.; Conget, P. Opportunities to Develop Lifelong Learning Tendencies in Practice-
Based Teacher Education: Getting Ready for Education 4.0. Future Internet 2021, 13, 292. [CrossRef]
79. Pepin, B.; Kock, Z. Students’ Use of Resources in a Challenge-Based Learning Context Involving Mathematics. Int. J. Res.
Undergrad. Math. Ed. 2021, 7, 306–327. [CrossRef]
80. Puente, G.; Doulougeri, K.; Bruns, M. Coaching Practices in Challenge-Based Learning: Characteristics and Practices in Student’s
Projects. In Proceedings of the 18th International CDIO Conference; Worldwide CDIO Initiative, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik,
Iceland, 13–15 June 2022.
81. Yan, L. Observation of Online Foreign Language Teaching Model Based on Massive Open Online Course and Small Private Online
Course During COVID-19 School Closure. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education Studies: Experience and
Innovation (ICESEI 2020), Moscow, Russia, 30 September–1 October 2020; Atlantis Press: Paris, France, 2020; pp. 468–473.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 234 23 of 23

82. Mensah, I.K.; Zeng, G.; Luo, C.; Lu, M.; Xiao, Z.-W. Exploring the E-Learning Adoption Intentions of College Students Amidst the
COVID-19 Epidemic Outbreak in China. SAGE Open 2022, 12, 21582440221086628. [CrossRef]
83. Fernández, L.; Fernández, S.; Rey, L.; Bobillo, M. Innovation in the First Mission of Universities. J. Innov. Manag. 2018, 6, 32–48.
[CrossRef]
84. World Economic Forum. New Vision for Education—Unlocking the Potential of Technology. Available online: http://widgets.
weforum.org/nve-2015/ (accessed on 1 November 2022).
85. Tauritz, R. How to Handle Knowledge Uncertainty: Learning and Teaching in Times of Accelerating Change. In Learning for
Sustainability in Times of Accelerating Change; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 299–316.
ISBN 978-90-8686-757-8.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.