Abstract
Challenge-based learning (CBL) is recognized in higher education for addressing societal demands and enhancing student performance. Existing literature discusses CBL’s efficacy, yet participant challenges are underexplored. Exploring this research gap is crucial to advance the development of CBL as an increasingly adopted educational approach across various disciplines. This study, involving 6 university teachers, 39 bachelor students, and 6 external stakeholders in an educational sciences CBL course, aims to identify and analyze these challenges. Using a classification system based on micro-, meso-, and macro-levels, challenges are categorized by their scale and scope of influence. Findings highlight challenges for lecturers in theory-practice bridging and for students in group work, stakeholder communication, and time management. Stakeholders stress challenges in interactions with students and lecturers, time management, and the theory-practice gap. This research advances understanding of the multifaceted challenges in CBL by offering a detailed analysis and introducing a novel classification framework, which delivers actionable insights for enhancing implementation and bridging critical gaps in existing literature.
Keywords
Introduction
Challenge-based learning (CBL) has been increasingly adopted in higher education institutions in recent years, driven by several key factors (Gallagher & Savage, 2020). Its focus on global challenges aligns with strategic institutional sustainability objectives (Bilbao-Goyoaga et al., 2023). Fostering student transversal competencies aligns with demands for more competency-based learning from industry (Caratozzolo & Membrillo-Hernandez, 2021). Including external stakeholders as collaborators aligns with social engagement and industry partnership needs (Christersson et al., 2022). In addition, educational funding and grant opportunities have indicated that CBL should be considered for innovative teaching approaches (European Commission, 2021)
This increase warrants exploration of its pedagogy, implementation activities, and student outcomes. Although there is a growing repository of literature on the effectiveness of CBL (e.g. Yang et al., 2018), detailed investigation of the challenges facing students, lecturers, and other stakeholders involved in CBL is lacking, especially within specific disciplines. This provides a knowledge gap and allows space for a framework and recommendations for improving CBL practice.
This research explores CBL challenges within the Educational Sciences discipline and gains perceptions of challenges with CBL from the perspective of multiple CBL participants, students, lecturers, and external stakeholders. Identifying individual challenges is beneficial for improving CBL practice, but comparing challenges between participants can provide holistic insights and a more comprehensive understanding and bridge the gap between CBL participants facing different challenges.
Literature review
Challenge-based learning is a growing pedagogical approach where students integrate disciplinary knowledge and 21st-century skills to address real-life global challenges by collaborating with a range of stakeholders (Leijon et al., 2022; Membrillo-Hernández, 2021; Rådberg et al., 2020). Although CBL is a flexible approach with many different methods, structures, and outputs, common characteristics include the use of global themes and real-world challenges, technology adoption, promotion of innovation and creativity, multi-disciplinarity, a defined challenge, and collaboration (Gallagher & Savage, 2020). A common CBL framework used by many educators emerged from the Apple Classrooms for Today–Tomorrow project, and involves three interconnecting phases, Engage, Investigate, and Act (Nichols et al., 2016). Students move from a big idea to an actionable challenge, use activities and resources to investigate the challenge, and collaborate with teachers and stakeholders throughout these three phases, to present solutions to the challenge (Serrano et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2018).
CBL scholars often situate this approach within Active (Binder et al., 2017; Huesca et al., 2024) and Experiential Learning contexts (Chanin et al., 2018; Serrano et al., 2018), where it shares some commonalities with Project Based Learning and Problem-Based Learning (Doulougeri et al., 2024; van den Beemt et al., 2023). However, its open, flexible approach is where commonalities end. Often the challenge definition is broad and refined in a co-creative process involving all stakeholders, and the challenge is a real world, inter-disciplinary problem (Sukackė et al., 2022). CBL educators usually act as co-collaborators, coaches, or co-designers (Baloian et al., 2006) rather than formal instructors. In addition, many practitioners have created bespoke models of CBL to align with objectives and competencies required by their own students (Félix-Herrán et al., 2019; Gama et al., 2018). This flexibility in delivery and definition can be useful for innovation and multi-disciplinarity, but conversely, can bring uncertainty on broader discussions of whether CBL students are acquiring knowledge, applying knowledge, or both. Cognitive-orientated scholars (Kirschner et al., 2006) suggest that approaches such as CBL could be less effective or efficient than approaches that have more formalized and structured guidance. Others from a constructivist viewpoint argue that CBL-type approaches are crucial for real-world skill development (Kolb, 2014). As scholarly literature on CBL grows, CBL has been touted as a means for students to both acquire and apply knowledge (Nicholls, 2018) in that students acquire knowledge during the “engage and investigate” phases and apply knowledge during the “act” phase.
As interest in CBL has increased, scholarly literature related to its pedagogy, development, delivery, and student outcomes has shown marked increase since its earliest reference in 2001, with publications commonly within social science, engineering, computer science, and educational research literature (Elsevier, 2023). The early research landscape for CBL appears to be centralized within “hard” (Biglan, 1973) disciplinary fields, for example, engineering (Lara-Prieto et al., 2023) and computer science (Cardoso et al., 2021). However, as CBL became more established, other disciplines outside of this initial narrow scope have incorporated this pedagogical approach including Architecture (Racha-Pacheco et al., 2023), Sports Science (Franco et al., 2023), and Modern Languages (Bennett, 2023).
This breadth of disciplines is a nod to a key characteristic of CBL, whereby flexibility allows for its application across all disciplines. Broadening of CBL disciplinary adoption also demonstrates how its principles align with contemporaneous pedagogical challenges, such as including external stakeholders, addressing global sustainability challenges, incorporating student-centeredness, facilitating technology, and fostering skill-based competencies. However, its greater use across higher education institutions and disciplines provides a need for improved understanding of its benefits and challenges to enhance its effectiveness and overcome implementation barriers.
Challenges with active learning
CBL is often categorized as an Active Learning pedagogy (Sukackė et al., 2022), whereby students are engaged in a hands-on process using meaningful learning activities and are prompted to think critically about these activities. Lecturers usually assume the role of a supporter or mentor, and monitor student progress throughout (Prince & Felder, 2007). Although the benefits of Active Learning are often heralded by practitioners, including increasing critical thinking skills (Huda et al., 2016), student engagement (Stoltzfus & Libarkin, 2016), and knowledge retention (Kvam, 2000), and the reduction of failure rates (Freeman et al., 2014), many challenges have also been identified.
Lecturers more familiar with traditional forms of teaching may be unwilling or resistant to the approach, due to the time needed to transform existing courses. At an institutional level, resourcing may be needed in terms of IT infrastructure, general support, and staffing, which may not be available (Hernández-de-Menéndez et al., 2019). For students, activities commonly used in Active Learning such as groupwork, can be challenging. They may work with others who have not prepared, or are unwilling to contribute to a group, face an unwelcoming group, perceive inequalities in group selection or group grading, or lack instruction on how to work in a group (Livingstone & Lynch, 2002; Nardo et al., 2022). Teachers are no longer the focal point and students must reorientate themselves to this change and the move to an unfamiliar teaching approach (Kressler & Kressler, 2020; Petersen & Gorman, 2014). Students may also face equity challenges in terms of accessing resources or time needed to prepare for sessions (Nardo et al., 2022).
Challenges with experiential learning
CBL has also been characterized as using elements of Experiential Learning, whereby students work within a transformative continuous process with non-fixed ideas, engage in a real experience with personal investment, where there may be an unpredictability of specific outcomes (Herbert, 1995; Kolb, 2014). This “learning by doing” approach has recorded benefits such as increased student motivation, retention, and engagement, improved connections between students and external stakeholders, greater connections to taught subject matter, and scaffolding professional skillsets and competencies for future careers (Rosier et al., 2016; Wright, 2000).
However, similarly to Active Learning, challenges with this approach are faced by students, lecturers, and external stakeholders. At an institutional level there may be administrative challenges with planning and implementation, and endorsement and commitment challenges with lecturers (Austin & Rust, 2015). At a curriculum level, creating and maintaining a real-world environment with external stakeholders can be costly and time-heavy (Aggarwal & Wu, 2019). Facilities for Experiential Learning, such as transportation, IT resources, and equipment can also be costly (Nooghabi et al., 2011) and can have a major impact on the student experience. Students can also face challenges with a lack of time to reflect or debrief on an activity, the personal impact of feedback from peers, mismatched expectations, team conflicts, inefficient collaboration, and poor engagement (Bradford, 2019; James & Gallager, 2020).
Challenges with challenge-based learning
Even though CBL has its origins in Active and Experiential learning, its application can be considered unique to CBL. As such, some CBL studies have identified multiple benefits for students, teachers, and external stakeholders. Students can improve their soft skills (López-Fernández et al., 2020) technical skills, teamwork ability, and industry networking experience (Cheung et al., 2011); stakeholders benefit from creative and innovative solutions (Jordán-Fisas & Mas-Machuca, 2022); lecturers benefit from improving their organization and facilitation skills, and by implementing pedagogical innovation.
It is apparent, however, that many studies on CBL tend to focus on positive outcomes, perhaps due to a need to motivate scientific optimism in CBL, publication bias where more positive outcomes tend to be published, and its novelty and flexibility makes it difficult to identify its weaknesses. In some literature, specific challenges have been mooted including student mismatch with course expectations, conflicting institutional policy requirements (Mandal & George, 2021), the need for more time for student mastery of specific skills (Eraña-Rojas et al., 2019), a new pedagogy, and solving a challenge (Membrillo-Hernández et al., 2019), coordination improvements (Briede-Westermeyer et al., 2017), lack of perceived disciplinary knowledge gains (Rådberg et al., 2020), and teamwork organization difficulties (Portuguez Castro & Gómez Zermeño, 2020).
Combining the challenges identified in the Active, Experiential, and Challenge-Based literature, it appears that key areas of concern include resistance to adapt to new teaching approaches, resourcing constraints, time constraints, institutional barriers, mismatched expectations, and group work challenges. This research aims to explore whether the challenges perceived by students, lecturers, and external stakeholders in CBL align with existing literature and if there are any unidentified challenges to support the improvement of CBL implementation.
Study aim
In response to recent efforts to develop a CBL framework (Helker et al., 2024), we recognize the necessity of incorporating challenges faced by all relevant stakeholders. This is essential for providing a comprehensive understanding of the obstacles encountered and for guiding targeted interventions. To achieve this, we utilize a classification system that encompasses micro-, meso-, and macro-levels. Through this, the study aims to not only contribute valuable insights to the existing literature but also provide practical recommendations for improving CBL practices at multiple levels. The following exploratory research question guided the present study: What challenges are perceived by students, lecturers, and external stakeholders within the context of challenge-based learning?
Method
The CBL case
The context of this case study centers on a CBL-oriented course designed for second-year bachelor’s students enrolled in a Minor in Educational Sciences at a Dutch university. The course is also open to pre-master’s students and available as an elective. It falls under the broader theme of organizational psychology, with a focus on helping students gain a comprehensive understanding of how organizations manage change and development, by fostering a culture of continuous learning. Originally, the course followed a teacher-centered instructional approach. However, insights from informal discussions and interviews with professionals and academics across various institutions highlighted the necessity to improve the course, addressing the challenges encountered by emerging professionals in bridging theoretical knowledge with practical applications upon entering the workforce. The redesigned course embraces a CBL methodology, emphasizing self-directed learning (Gallagher & Savage, 2020). Students engage in real-world issues, collaborate with partners and clients within an organization, and guide transformative processes by proposing, designing, and implementing interventions that facilitate organizational change.
Throughout this journey, students are given the responsibility for their own learning, collaborating closely with organizations, improving their professional skills, and effectively bridging the theoretical-practical divide (e.g. Fallows & Steven, 2000). This transformative process alters the teacher’s role, necessitating a delicate balance of stakeholder expectations and ensuring smooth communication between the academic realm and the external world. While this study focuses on exploring the challenges encountered by all three stakeholders involved, it’s important to highlight the success of the course. This evolution in teaching aims to empower students to navigate the complexities of the professional world and foster a more dynamic link between theory and practice. Rather than serving as the primary source of knowledge and guidance, the teacher assumes the role of a facilitator, guiding students through the intricacies of self-directed learning.
It is important to note that while the course is CBL-oriented, the assessment strategy includes both a traditional exam and project-based work. The exam is designed to assess students’ foundational understanding of the theoretical concepts that underpin organizational psychology. The project-based work includes application-oriented questions, requiring students to demonstrate their ability to connect theory with practice. This dual approach aims to equip students with both deep theoretical knowledge and the practical skills needed to navigate real-world organizational challenges.
Research design
A mixed-methods design was adopted using focus groups, self-reflection exercises, and an open-ended survey. This approach was chosen as it provides a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the CBL-oriented course by combining qualitative and quantitative insights, a practice widely supported in educational research (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2023; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).
Focus groups were conducted with university teachers who actively taught the course, as they are particularly effective for fostering in-depth discussions and capturing the collective insights and reflections of educators (Morgan, 1996). This method allowed teachers to exchange ideas, articulate challenges, and elaborate on their experiences with CBL, offering a rich, interactive dataset that would be difficult to obtain through surveys alone. Self-reflection exercises were employed for students, enabling them to reflect on their own learning experiences critically. This approach not only provided personal and introspective accounts of growth but also aligned with research that emphasizes the importance of reflection in fostering deeper learning and metacognitive skills (Dörnyei, 2007).
Finally, an open-ended survey was administered to external stakeholders, allowing for the collection of diverse viewpoints. The open-ended format encouraged detailed responses and ensured that participants could freely express their thoughts without the limitations of predetermined survey categories. This combination of methods provided a balanced and comprehensive view of the CBL course, allowing us to triangulate the data and better understand the varying perceptions of its challenges (Greene et al., 1989).
This multi-perspective approach was chosen to ensure a holistic understanding of the course, enhancing the robustness of the analysis by capturing both individual and collective insights (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). The integration of these methods provided both depth and breadth in exploring the CBL-oriented course.
Participants
Participants in the study consisted of six university teachers who were involved in teaching the course within the bachelor program of Educational Sciences. For external stakeholders, we approached a total of nine individuals, of whom six agreed to participate. The course had n = 122 students enrolled, and two groups, comprising n = 44 students (36% of the total student population), volunteered to participate in the redesigned CBL course. Out of these 44 students, n = 39 (32% of the total population) provided written consent to allow the use of their data for the study. All participants provided written consent to participate. To protect the anonymity of the participants, their characteristics were aggregated into broad categories, and pseudonyms were used. Table 1 provides an overview of the three stakeholders involved in the study, along with the data source used for every stakeholder.
Overview of participants and data sources.
Teacher focus group
The focus group took place in a face-to-face setting and lasted for approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes. Data were recorded through audio using a dictaphone. The recorded interview was transcribed using the Amberscript software. The transcription was subsequently checked and revised by the first author for accuracy and any personally identifiable information was omitted. At the beginning of the focus group session, the first author provided a brief overview of the topic and established group rules. The author posed a series of open-ended questions and provided participants with the opportunity to elaborate and engage in discussion according to their individual perspectives and needs. These questions included inquiries such as how participants experienced teaching the CBL course overall, their assessment of what worked well, the challenges they faced during the course, their views on what is necessary for its continuation, and if there were any additional insights they wished to share. Before the recording started, participants had the opportunity to ask any questions they had.
Student self-reflections
To conclude the course, students were required to engage in a self-reflection exercise. Each student individually completed this take-home written exercise, where they reflected on their learning journey with a focus on competencies such as collaboration, communication, and learning ability, as well as insights gained regarding their own study. The self-reflection was limited to a maximum of 500 words and submitted separately to the teacher. Although the reflection itself was not graded, its submission was mandatory for course completion. A comprehensive self-reflection guide was provided to assist students in articulating their thoughts. The self-reflection guide was not a questionnaire but was designed solely to support students’ self-reflection process. In detail, this guide included prompts designed to elicit students’ perceptions and experiences related to their learning process, including aspects such as understanding course content, overcoming challenges, collaboration skills, and personal growth as learners. The self-reflection exercise was completed at home, allowing students to complete it at their convenience while supporting thoughtful engagement with the prompts.
External stakeholders survey
An invitation to complete the open-ended survey was sent to all nine external stakeholders working with the student teams. Of these, six voluntarily agreed to participate in the study. Participants were asked to reflect on their involvement in the course, describing their experiences and providing detailed explanations of what worked well for them. Additionally, participants were prompted to discuss any challenges they encountered during the course, providing brief explanations of the obstacles they faced. Moreover, participants were invited to share their views on the actions necessary to continue offering the course based on their experiences and observations. The survey was administered online using the online platform Qualtrics. The survey aimed to gather valuable insights and perspectives from the stakeholders, allowing them the freedom to express their thoughts, opinions, and suggestions in their own words. A 2-week timeframe was provided for participants to complete the surveys, and one reminder was sent to enhance response rates.
Data analysis
Data from teachers’ focus group discussions, students’ self-reflections, and stakeholders’ open-ended survey responses were transcribed and prepared for analysis. An inductive approach was applied, with participants’ statements coded using a step-by-step thematic analysis method, as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006). Following their approach, we first reviewed all datasets to identify initial ideas and patterns. Initial coding categories were developed based on the participants’ actual words and phrases, and the data were examined to identify common themes and patterns. Data collection occurred in the spring and early summer of 2023, with initial familiarization with the data beginning in the summer of 2023. In the fall of 2023, to ensure reliability, a second coder independently reviewed and recoded a subset of the data. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved through consensus. The initial themes were refined iteratively: broad themes were subdivided, and less frequent themes were merged or excluded. Finally, both the first and second authors conducted a thorough review and coding of the entire dataset to establish the final set of themes, ensuring accuracy and consistency across all data sources. The themes were organized into micro, meso, and macro levels to reflect the varying scale of influence for each challenge identified.
Results
Below, we outline the challenges perceived in the CBL course across all three participant groups. To provide a clear demarcation between challenges and thematic orientation to guide interventions to address these challenges, we have used a micro-, meso-, and macro-level classification. This classification is grounded in the scale and scope of influence for each challenge. The micro-level focuses on individual challenges, including the teacher’s role, student learning experiences, group-work dynamics, and interactions among students, stakeholders, and teachers. The meso-level delves into course-level challenges, exploring issues at an organizational or intermediary scale. This includes challenges related to assessment and guidance, course dynamics and time management, literature relevance, communication collaboration, organizational understanding, and instructional clarity. The macro-level addresses systemic-level challenges, encompassing broader perspectives. This level mainly covers challenges for teachers and stakeholders in bridging theory and practice. In the section below, we first present the findings from the lecturers’ focus group discussion, followed by students’ self-reflections, and lastly, we discuss the outcomes of the open-ended questions from stakeholders. The quotations presented may contain grammatical inaccuracies that were deliberately kept to capture the authenticity of all stakeholder voices.
Lecturers
During the focus group discussions, lecturers highlighted challenges encountered in CBL, with assessment emerging as a significant challenge. They shared diverse experiences regarding students’ learning in CBL, reflected on their roles in a CBL classroom, and exchanged ideas about bridging the gap between theory and practice in CBL. Within these discussions, lecturers identified various challenges that need attention, proposing potential future enhancements and modifications to the course. They offered several ideas and suggestions on which aspects of the course should be addressed to overcome challenges.
Micro level challenges
Teacher role
Challenges emerged as lecturers discussed their transition to the role of facilitator within the course. While some found the experience exciting and positive, others found the facilitator role challenging. One teacher stated, “I was less the teacher and more the facilitator and this also added some stress.” Several lecturers expanded on the role of the facilitator during various points in the focus group discussion. This facilitator role was occasionally perceived as stressful for CBL lecturers, especially when student groups encountered challenges. Instead of providing stepwise guidance, lecturers had to encourage students to self-regulate their learning.
Student learning experiences
Concerning student learning experiences, challenges surfaced in grading CBL assignments throughout the process, focusing on progress toward the final product. This approach to grading significantly influenced the aspects students prioritized, indicating a noticeable shift toward valuing the process over the final outcome. The consensus among most lecturers resonated with a fellow teacher’s observation that students within the CBL group tended to prioritize the journey of learning rather than fixating on the end result.
Meso level challenges
Assessment and guidance
A consensus was reached on the importance of the chosen assessment methods as a key challenge. All lecturers agreed to employ two assessment approaches: a traditional exam and a group assignment. This approach aimed to address the challenge of assessing both individual student efforts while fostering collaboration among students. Moreover, two lecturers voiced concerns about the adequacy of their guidance for students and were uncertain about the eventual appearance of the students’ final reports. One teacher observed that the assignment’s inherent freedom occasionally posed challenges for students, indicating a need for more explicit guidelines.
Course dynamics and time
This included challenges in allocating sufficient time for students to engage in discussions regarding their teamwork approach, shared expectations, and goals. Lecturers recognized the importance of dedicating time during the initial weeks to cultivate a cohesive team and devise effective strategies. For instance, one teacher highlighted the significance, stating, “I think a good thing was that the first week and also the second week we paid some time and attention to creating our team and really think about. . .” “okay, what kind of team will work.” These aspects contributed to the overall course dynamics, impacting how students collaborate and engage with the material. Simultaneously, another teacher expressed feeling overwhelmed by the substantial time commitment required.
Literature relevance
One of the challenges that lecturers discussed, as perceived by students, was related to the course literature that students were required to read in preparation for the subject. While some lecturers believed that the selected literature was highly relevant, several students encountered difficulty understanding the literature and relating it to practical applications. Conversely, some lecturers expressed the view that students with prior work experience could more readily comprehend the content of the readings. For example, one lecturer noted that while the literature and assignments are well-designed, bachelor students often find the material too abstract and struggle to connect it to their limited work experience. Despite efforts to provide practical cases, this remained a challenge throughout the course.
Macro level challenges
Theory and practice
Lecturers engaged in active discussions regarding the influence of prior work experience on student engagement. One teacher observed that students with previous work experience might feel they already understand practical aspects and thus may not engage deeply with course theory, assuming their real-world experience is sufficient. Additionally, the same teacher commented on students without prior work experience, noting that these students showcase greater engagement with the course literature and actively seek connections between theory and practice. The teacher stated: “But I think the groups that had more distance, like, they were not friends with the stakeholder, or the stakeholder was not known to them. They were much more actively searching. They were much more actively using the literature.”
Another teacher presented a conflicting viewpoint, noting that it is rather easier to connect theory with practice for students with previous work experience. Whereas for students without previous work experience, the theory was challenging to grasp. The teacher said: “My impression was a bit, uh, different, so I noticed that those that had work experience actually appreciated the theory very much. Because they had that attitude of. . .” “okay, I know what it means. . . a change, and how difficult it is making a change to happen in an organization.” “So, I really want to learn this story to make sure that next time I am part of it. . .then it will be successful.” In contrast, students without prior experience struggled to comprehend the significance of discussing these topics and understanding the importance of these theories.
Students
Challenges
In facing challenges, students reflected on their learning outcomes. While encountering group work challenges, some found value in critically examining theory-practice translation using tools like the Data Matrix. The course influenced students’ career perspectives, with many considering educational advising. Diverse opinions emerged, with some experiencing a positive shift, while others maintained initial disinterest. Feelings regarding the theory-practice gap were acknowledged, with most students perceiving the assignment as a means to immediately apply knowledge. Additionally, students reflected on their interaction with course literature during report writing.
Micro level challenges
Stakeholder participation
One student mentioned that they needed to conduct interviews with employees to identify and solve the “challenge” issue, and they found it challenging to find participants. They wrote that the external stakeholder who acted as their supervisor had an optimistic attitude and encouraged them to contact as many employees as they could, and then having only a few responses was disappointing. They also shared: “I personally thought it was very unfortunate that we had so few responses on the survey we had distributed.”
Groupwork dynamics
Among the 39 students, 19 mentioned difficulties with collaborative group work. Some students raised concerns about uneven levels of effort from their group members during assignments, as well as some matched expectations. For instance, one student wrote in their self-reflection: “Agreements that were not fulfilled were the rule rather than the exception. Reasons as I have overslept myself, I didn’t have time, and I forgot it makes me feel [that my classmates] do not take [the assignment] seriously. . .Even in the last week before the deadline, groupmates tried to postpone agreements until the day of the deadline.”
Meso level challenges
Communication and time management
Several students mentioned that communication with other students was challenging for them. One of the students expressed that it was hard for them to communicate about the unequal effort put into the assignment: “I think it would be better to communicate more about this. But I have not yet found a way to do that respectfully and nicely that I have the idea that some people do not put the required time and effort into it.” Additionally, five students mentioned that time management was a challenge. Indicatively, the student pointed out that: “The collaboration was a bit sharper because we were delayed in the beginning when finding a client, and then a group mate decided to drop the program. Because of this we still had to write the entire report with just three people in little time.” Finally, one student expressed the difficulties they faced regarding the content of the course explaining that: “Sometimes we got stuck in terms of content and they [group mates] didn’t know how to proceed anymore.”
Collaboration with stakeholders
Several students expressed that collaborating with the stakeholders presented challenges. One student wrote: “I soon noticed that I did not feel completely in my place within the organization for which we carried out the assignment. The world of the organization we worked with is very far from my world.” Another student critically reflected on the communication with the client: “The only point that could sometimes happen somewhat sloppy in our communication was the contact with the client. Because we all sometimes took the initiative to email the client, it was sometimes unclear who had to email back to confirm agreements or create team meetings. This may have been a bit unprofessional.”
Stakeholders
Challenges
External stakeholders served as partners, contributing to students’ practical learning. There was a noticeable lack of direct communication and alignment between their efforts and teachers’ practices. The necessity for a clearer course structure, including moments of interaction among all relevant parties, was emphasized to enhance the integration of research and practice. Time management and a deeper understanding of organization dynamics were also highlighted as areas requiring improvement.
Micro level challenges
Student, stakeholder, and teacher interactions
During the analysis of stakeholders’ responses, it became evident that expectations between the lecturer, and the course structure, were not always aligned with stakeholders’ expectations. One stakeholder pointed out, “Expectations from the course or teachers and me [the stakeholder] were not quite aligned.” Moreover, stakeholders noted that the presence of students was not always prominent or well-received by the employees of the stakeholders’ company. Despite students asking insightful questions during interactions with company employees, this was not what people recalled, posing a challenge and potentially complicating future collaborations with the university and upcoming assignments. A stakeholder further suggested, “It would be helpful to have an earlier understanding of when to do that for the students.”
Meso level challenges
Balancing time and depth in organization understanding
In the examination of open-ended feedback from stakeholders who partnered with students, challenges stemming from their collaboration on the assignment became a prominent theme. The primary challenge emphasized was associated with time management. One stakeholder expressed, “It did require a considerable amount of time.” Another stakeholder pointed out, “Providing students with a comprehensive understanding of the organization in a limited timeframe is quite challenging.” Moreover, the pace was quite rapid, leaving students with insufficient time to address it adequately. Another stakeholder emphasized student preparedness, highlighting the importance of being on time, being prepared, knowing who they are going to meet, and presenting themselves appropriately.
Instructional clarity
When discussing potential improvements, two stakeholders suggested maintaining the current course format. In contrast, one stakeholder proposed a bit more instruction from university teachers, envisioning a session with both students and teachers to improve clarity on expectations.
Macro level challenges
Theory and practice
Similar to lecturers, stakeholders’ perspectives revealed the existence of a theory-practice gap. Stakeholders recognize the importance of providing a proper introduction to real-world practices outside of academia and understanding how companies function. They emphasize the challenge of imparting a comprehensive understanding of the organization to students within a limited time frame. Additionally, stakeholders stress the necessity for students to have prior exposure and experience with the organization they will be working on before their actual engagement begins. A stakeholder mentioned, “In my opinion, students should see and experience the organization for which they work. I suggested this to the group [of teachers], and they liked the idea, and I think they should initiate it next time.”
Overarching challenges
Upon reviewing the challenges faced by all stakeholders involved in the CBL course, three overarching themes emerged across the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels. A significant challenge identified by teachers and stakeholders was bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application, highlighting the difficulty of making real-world connections in the presence of limited time and varying levels of prior experience. Additionally, communication issues and misaligned expectations between students, lecturers, and external stakeholders were consistently mentioned, impacting group dynamics, stakeholder collaborations, and the overall coordination of the course. Finally, managing time effectively emerged as a challenge at all levels, with both students and stakeholders expressing difficulties in balancing the depth of engagement required for organizational understanding with the time constraints imposed by the course. Table 2 presents a detailed overview of all challenges.
Challenge nexus.
Discussion
Our findings reveal diverse experiences among lecturers, students, and external stakeholders involved in the CBL course. Lecturers found it challenging to transition to a role where they work more as facilitators, setting the stage and enabling students to explore the subject area independently. Motivating students to act independently in such a pedagogical setting posed additional challenges to lecturers. Similar to active learning, the shift to a facilitator role, where lecturers are no longer the central focus, requires both lecturers and students to adapt to this change and embrace an unfamiliar teaching approach (Kressler & Kressler, 2020; Petersen & Gorman, 2014).
Guiding students in learning with minimal guidance poses challenges for lecturers, not only in CBL but also in other innovative pedagogies. For instance, literature on PBL has also emphasized the challenging role of the teacher in innovative classrooms. The role of lecturers in facilitating innovation in education becomes more complex and intricate. Baumann et al. (2016), introduced the term “provocateur,” highlighting that a teacher in innovative classrooms is not merely a facilitator but someone who provokes students’ awareness, interest, and motivation to develop skills, knowledge, and understanding and apply these in the act of teaching. This complexity, although challenging to navigate, is not only highly necessary but also potentially rewarding, especially for lecturers who are ready and willing to embrace it.
At the macro-level, lecturers encountered challenges in bridging theory and practice, even though the pedagogical approach of CBL, which promotes a “learning by doing” approach, has shown improved connections with external stakeholders which might suggest a better connection between theory and practice (Rosier et al., 2016; Wright, 2000). Efforts by lecturers to successfully bridge the gap between theory and practice have long been recognized in the literature as a challenge (e.g. Allsopp et al., 2006; Georgiou et al., 2023). Innovative pedagogies like CBL have emerged to facilitate this bridge between theory and practice. However, the adoption of such a pedagogy alone, without proper professional development efforts, may not successfully bridge the gap.
Teacher professional development programs have the potential to emphasize the use of “authentic” examples that are transferable to professional practice. Risan (2020) suggests that educators can reveal how they establish connections between theoretical and practical knowledge in campus-based teaching by focusing on artifacts such as teaching materials, pupil texts, and research articles. However, time is a challenge in academia (Georgiou et al., 2023), and there is a need to also innovate professional development efforts. Developing realistic challenging training situations within virtual reality environments to integrate contrasting discussions between theoretical concepts and practical applications in university teaching could be the future of professional development.
Students experienced various challenges in group dynamics, echoing findings from previous CBL literature (Cheung et al., 2011). While some praised positive group interactions, others faced difficulties in collaboration, communication, time management, and grasping course content. These challenges align with active learning activities, such as group work, where inadequate preparation, unwelcoming atmospheres, perceived inequalities, and unclear instructions hinder effective collaboration (Livingstone & Lynch, 2002; Nardo et al., 2022). Similar challenges are observed in experiential learning, urging for more time for skill mastery and addressing teamwork issues (Bradford, 2019; Eraña-Rojas et al., 2019; Portuguez Castro & Gómez Zermeño, 2020).
Addressing these challenges requires a holistic approach. Effective student preparation is crucial for successful CBL implementation, emphasizing the need to clarify CBL’s nature and foster openness and exploration (Ungaretti et al., 2015). However, minimal lecturer guidance in CBL poses challenges, suggesting the need for additional support mechanisms like coaches or peer groups (Gallagher & Savage, 2020). At the micro and meso levels, students encountered difficulties in communicating with external stakeholders and engaging them in addressing organizational challenges, a topic often overlooked in CBL literature (Mayer et al., 2022).
Effective communication and role clarification are vital in fostering collaboration, with suggestions to develop participatory models for enhanced engagement (Hall et al., 2021). Ensuring cooperation with external partners is rewarding for all stakeholders and requires careful planning and relevance to students’ interests (Mayer et al., 2022; Sukackė et al., 2022). Stakeholders highlighted time management challenges and the theory-practice gap, underscoring the importance of students experiencing real-world contexts (Van den Beemt & MacLeod, 2021). Supporting students in setting learning goals and fostering communication and collaboration among stakeholders and lecturers can further improve students’ educational experiences in CBL, bridging theoretical concepts and practical applications for a comprehensive learning journey.
Implications for theory and practice
The micro, meso, and macro nexus of challenges identified in this study provides a conceptual foundation for adopting a reflective approach to rethinking the role of lecturers in active learning pedagogies, such as challenge-based learning. This involves reexamining the interactions between lecturers and students in innovative higher education classrooms and reconsidering instructional practices in light of technological advancements. Our findings challenge traditional perceptions of instructors as mere knowledge transmitters, highlighting a shift toward more facilitative roles, such as coaches or “provocateurs” (Baumann et al., 2016).
From a theoretical perspective, this calls for a deeper exploration of teaching identities and the emotional, cognitive, and professional adjustments required for this paradigm shift. It emphasizes the need for a nuanced understanding of how facilitation intersects with motivational and provocative pedagogical approaches. From a practical perspective, we propose refocusing professional development programs to support the transition from traditional lecturer to facilitator, leveraging technology to enhance this transformation. For instance, virtual reality environments can simulate challenges faced in innovative classrooms, allowing teachers to experience these challenges firsthand. This immersive approach can be combined with peer coaching, where lecturers engage in shared reflection, collaboratively discuss challenges, and develop solutions. Based on the findings of this study, we are designing a professional development course to promote shared reflections among lecturers and support their learning for innovative teaching practices. Professional development efforts should also prioritize training in specific facilitation skills, such as leading group discussions, fostering student independence, and using open-ended questions to stimulate critical thinking.
In addition, the challenge of minimal guidance in CBL aligns with cognitive-oriented critiques (e.g. Kirschner et al., 2006), underscoring the need to reconcile constructivist and cognitive perspectives on student independence and guided instruction. In practice, students may require better preparation for CBL classrooms. This could include focused training in teamwork dynamics, time management strategies, and effective communication with stakeholders. Such a shift includes prioritizing the development of practical skills alongside academic knowledge. Communication between students and teachers may also need to evolve, with a focus on establishing clear guidelines and roles to establish a shared understanding of responsibilities and expectations. Regular check-ins and feedback sessions can provide a structured platform for sharing experiences, challenges, and strategies for improvement, fostering scaffolded and self-regulated learning.
From a policy perspective, we suggest that time, as a recurring barrier, warrants theoretical inquiry into optimizing resource allocation and institutional support for active learning pedagogies. In practice, technology can assist with time management through tools that track and allocate time effectively. However, we also advocate for allocating more time to foster innovation in higher education, ensuring that both teachers and students have the resources and flexibility to adapt to evolving educational paradigms.
Limitations
Although this study provides valuable insights into the challenges and experiences within a CBL-oriented course, several considerations must be acknowledged. The study’s focus on a single CBL case study within the educational sciences, while providing in-depth insights, may not fully capture the diversity of experiences in other disciplines. Expanding research to include various disciplines could offer a broader understanding of how CBL is implemented and perceived across different contexts. However, it is important to note that many challenges identified in the literature, particularly in engineering, a discipline with extensive studies on CBL courses, are also present in our study, though with some notable differences. Furthermore, our study adhered to a constructivist approach, which values the significance of individual perspectives (Creswell & Poth, 2016). To address potential limitations, we intentionally included the perspectives of all three stakeholders involved in the course, which is both a strength and a unique characteristic of the study. However, we also acknowledge that future research should aim to include a larger sample of all three stakeholder groups.
We employed a mixed methods approach with a focus on qualitative research since our intention was not to generalize our results to a broader population. Instead, our aim was to offer a detailed and context-specific insight into the challenges of students, lecturers, and external stakeholders in a CBL course in educational sciences (Polit & Beck, 2010). While our constructivist approach allows for detailed exploration future research could examine longitudinal impacts offering a more comprehensive view of how CBL evolves. Moreover, individual differences among students, such as prior knowledge or varying levels of engagement, could affect the outcomes, highlighting the importance of considering these factors in future research. Despite these limitations, the study makes a significant contribution to the field by providing a detailed and context-specific insight into the complexities of implementing CBL. This work advances our understanding of this innovative pedagogical approach, offering valuable implications for both practice and further research.
Conclusion
This study is the first to explore the complexities faced by lecturers, students, and external stakeholders in a CBL course within the educational sciences, providing a comprehensive view of their experiences and the challenges encountered. A thematic analysis of the data reveals three overarching themes: the need to bridge theory and practice, the importance of effective communication and alignment of expectations, and the challenges of time management and course structure. While lecturers appreciated the active learning aspect of CBL, they faced difficulties transitioning to a facilitator role, which necessitated a shift in both teaching and learning dynamics. Students reported personal growth and insights into their future careers but struggled with collaboration, time management, and engagement with external stakeholders. The collected data emphasized the significance of these experiences, highlighting the necessity for ongoing support and adaptation to create effective CBL environments. By recognizing and addressing the diverse challenges faced at the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels, targeted interventions can enhance the CBL experience, ensuring that it meets the needs of all stakeholders and fosters deeper integration between theoretical knowledge and practical applications.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We thank the course coordinators and all participants for their valuable time.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning grant from the Centre for Academic Teaching and Learning at Utrecht University.
Ethical approval
The present study received approval from the Ethics Review Board of the Faculty of Social & Behavioural Sciences at Utrecht University. All participants provided written informed consent to take part in this study.
