Analysing Student Motivation in Challenge-Based Learning in Higher Engineering Education Using the Self-Determination Theory

Abstract

Challenge-based learning (CBL) engages students in complex, real-life challenges, promoting responsibility for their learning. Existing research has identified several factors that contribute to students’ motivation in CBL environments. However, prior studies have focused primarily on cognitive and metacognitive learning functions in active learning environments in higher engineering education. Further, affective/motivational functions regulate behaviors and emotions that arise during learning and stimulate affective responses that may positively, negatively or neutrally influence students’ learning process, performance, and well-being. Thus, using Self-Determination Theory (SDT), this qualitative study examines engineering students’ motivation in CBL environments. Twelve Master’s level students from a research-intensive university in Sweden took part in semi-structured interviews discussing their experiences during different CBL courses studies. Analysis combined inductive and deductive approaches, identifying affective/motivational functions emerging from the interviews and analysing them based on SDT concepts. The qualitative thematic analysis identified motivations that emerged such as innovation, entrepreneurship, designing learning, practical experience, real-world problem-solving, and societal contribution through sustainability, grounded by Self-determination continuum. SDT’s nutritient concepts of autonomy, competence, and relatedness were satisfied through structured tasks, mastery, learning, feedback, and positive social relationships. However, problematic areas such as a lack of rationale in tasks, absence of project choice, insecurity about professional rights, lack of feedback, limited growth opportunities, and negative social relationships frustrated students’ psychological needs. The study suggests practical applications to support motivational needs in higher engineering education, including regulating emotions during learning.

Keywords

References

1. [1] Gallagher, S.E., Savage, T., 2023. Challenge-based learning in higher education: an exploratory literature review. Teaching in Higher Education. 28, 1135–1157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1863354
2. [2] Kohn, R.K., Lundqvist, U., Malmqvist, J., et al., 2020. From CDIO to challenge-based learning experiences – expanding student learning as well as societal impact? European Journal of Engineering Education. 45, 22–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2018.1441265
3. [3] Malmqvist, J., Rådberg, K.K., Lundqvist, U., 2015. Comparative analysis of challenge-based learning experiences. 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu University of Information Technology; June 8–June 11, 2015; Chengdu, China.
4. [4] SFS 1993:100. 1993. Higher Education Ordinance.
5. [5] The Swedish Higher Education Act. (2021: 1282). Swedish Council for Higher Education. 2021.
6. [6] Johnson, L.F., Smith, R.S., Smythe, J.T., et al., 2009. Challenge-Based Learning: An Approach for Our Time. The New Media Consortium: Austin, Texas, USA.
7. [7] Membrillo-Hernández, J., de Jesús Ramírez-Cadena, M., Ramírez-Medrano, A., et al., 2021. Implementation of the challenge-based learning approach in Academic Engineering Programs. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM). 15, 287–298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-021-00755-3
8. [8] Membrillo-Hernández, J., Ramírez-Cadena, M. J., Martínez-Acosta, M., et al., 2019. Challenge based learning: the importance of world-leading companies as training partners. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM). 13, 1103–1113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00569-4
9. [9] Pantzos, P., Rosén, A., Buckley, J., et al., 2022. Engineering Students’ Motivation for Learning in Challenge-Driven Project Courses: A Qualitative Pilot Study. SEFI 2022 - 50th Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education. September 2022; Barcelona, Spain. pp. 2115–2121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5821/conference-9788412322262.1178
10. [10] Doulougeri, K., Bombaerts, G., Martin, D., et al., 2002. Exploring the factors influencing students’ experience with challenge-based learning: a case study. IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON 2022. March 2002; Tunis, Tunisia. pp. 981–988. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON52537.2022.9766574
11. [11] Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2020. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 61, 101860–101860. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
12. [12] Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2002. Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Determination Research. pp. 3–33. University of Rochester Press: Rochester, NY, USA.
13. [13] Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist. 55(1), 68–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
14. [14] Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2000. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 25(1), 54–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
15. [15] Deci, E.L., Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., et al., 1991. Motivation and Education: The Self-Determination Perspective. Educational Psychologist. 26, 325–346. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653137
16. [16] Vallerand, R.J., Losier, G.F., 1999. An integrative analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 11, 142–169.
17. [17] Zimmerman, B.J., 2002. Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory Into Practice. 41, 64–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
18. [18] Rosén, A., Högfeldt, A.-K., Lantz, A., et al., 2018. Connecting North and South through Challenge Driven Education. Proceedings of the 14th International CDIO Conference; June 28–July 2, 2018; Kanazawa, Japan. Available from: https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-240881
19. [19] Taajamaa, V., Rwegasira, D., Kelati, A., et al., 2017. Challenge Driven Education in the Context of Internet of Things. 9th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies; July 3–July 5, 2017; Barcelona, Spain. pp. 2490–2495.
20. [20] Van den Beemt, A., MacLeod, M., 2021. Tomorrows’ Challenges for Today’s Students: Challenge-Based Learning and Interdisciplinarity. SEFI 49th Annual Conference; Sept 13–Sept 16, 2021; Berlin, Germany. pp.588–597.
21. [21] Herzog, C., Breyer, S., Leinweber, N.A., et al., 2022. Everything You Want to Know and Never Dared to Ask - a Practical Approach to Employing Challenge-Based Learning in Engineering Ethics. SEFI 2022 - 50th Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education; Sept 19–Sept 22, 2022; Barcelona, Spain. pp. 1224–1232.
22. [22] Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2000. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 25(1), 54–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
23. [23] Entwistle, N., McCune, V., Walker, P., 2001. Conceptions, styles, and approaches within higher education: Analytical abstractions and everyday experience. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Mahwah, NJ, USA. pp.103–136.
24. [24] Niemiec, C.P., Ryan, R.M., 2009. Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom. Theory and Research in Education. 7(2), 133–144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318
25. [25] Bunce, L., Baird, A., Jones, S.E., 2017. The student-as-consumer approach in higher education and its effects on academic performance. Studies in Higher Education. 42(11), 1958–1978. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1127908
26. [26] Pantzos, P., Gumaelius, L., Buckley, J., et al., 2023. Engineering students’ perceptions of the role of work industry-related activities on their motivation for studying and learning in higher education. European Journal of Engineering Education. 48(1), 91–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2022.2093167
27. [27] Doulougeri, K., Vermunt, J.D., Bombaerts, G., et al., 2022. Analyzing student-teacher interactions in challenge-based learning. SEFI 2022: 50th Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education; Sept 11–Sept 14, 2022. Barcelona, Spain. pp.252–262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5821/conference-9788412322262.1389
28. [28] Lazendic-Galloway, J., Reymen, I.M. M.J., Bruns, M., et al., 2021. Students’ experiences with challenge-based learning at TU/e innovation Space.49th SEFI Annual Conference; Sept 13–Sept 16, 2021; Berlin, Germany. pp. 1005–1015.
29. [29] Viau, R., Joly, J., Sherbrooke, U., 2001. Understanding university students’ motivation to succeed for taking better action. Acfas: Quebec City, Canada.
30. [30] Vermunt, J., 2007. The power of teaching-learning environments to influence student learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II. pp. 73–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1348/000709906X162424
31. [31] Vermunt, J.D., Verloop, N., 1999. Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction. 9(3), 257–280. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00028-0
32. [32] Pelletier, L.G., Séguin-Lévesque, C., Legault, L., 2002. Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers' motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology. 94(1), 186–196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.186
33. [33] Kusurkar, R.A., Croiset, G., Ten Cate, O.T.J., 2011. Twelve tips to stimulate intrinsic motivation in students through autonomy-supportive classroom teaching derived from Self-Determination Theory. Medical Teacher. 33(12), 978–982. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.599896
34. [34] Ten Cate, O.T.J., Kusurkar, R.A., Williams, G.C., 2011. How self-determination theory can assist our understanding of the teaching and learning processes in medical education. AMEE Guide No. 59. Medical Teacher. 33, 961–973.
35. [35] Deci, E.L., Ryan R.M., 2000. The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry. 11(4), 227–268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
36. [36] Guba, E.G., Lincoln, Y.S., 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. pp.105–117.
37. [37] Schwandt, T.A., 1994. Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications, Inc: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. pp.118–137.
38. [38] Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G., Pilotta, J.J., 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 9(4), 438–439. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
39. [39] Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3(2), 77–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
40. [40] Creswell, J., 2009. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (3rd ed.). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
41. [41] Bryman, A., 2016. Social research methods / Alan Bryman. Fifth edit ed. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.
42. [42] MacFarlane, A., O’Reilly-de Brún, M., 2012. Using a Theory-Driven Conceptual Framework in Qualitative Health Research. Qualitative Health Research. 22(5), 607–618. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732311431898
43. [43] Ryan, R.M., Niemiec, C.P., 2009. Self-determination theory in schools of education. Theory and Research in Education. 7(2), 263–272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104331
44. [44] Sandelowski, M., 2008. Theoretical saturation. 2 ed.: Sage: London, UK. pp. 875–876.
45. [45] Clarke, V., Braun, V., 2013. Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. SAGE Publications Ltd: London, UK.
46. [46] Jackson, K., Bazeley, P., 2019. Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. 3rd ed. Sage: London, UK. pp.349–349.
47. [47] Buckley, J., Adams, L., Aribilola, I., et al., 2022. An assessment of the transparency of contemporary technology education research employing interview-based methodologies. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 32, 1963–1982. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09695-1
48. [48] Bryman, A., 2016. Social Research Methods. 5th ed.: Oxford University Press: NY, USA. pp.824–824.
49. [49] Creswell, J.W., Plano, C.V.L., 2007. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
50. [50] Molesworth, M., Nixon, E., Scullion, R., 2009. Having, being and higher education: The marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. Teaching in Higher Education. 14(3), 277–287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510902898841
51. [51] Dearing, R., 1997. Higher Education in the learning society. Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office: London, UK.
52. [52] Morris, K.V.A., 2022. Consumerist views of higher education and links to student wellbeing and achievement: an analysis based on the concept of autonomy as depicted in self-determination theory. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 46(6), 836–849. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2021.2011842
53. [53] Van den Beemt, A., Vázquez-Villegas, P., Gómez Puente, S., et al., 2023. Taking the Challenge: An Exploratory Study of the Challenge-Based Learning Context in Higher Education Institutions across Three Different Continents. Education Sciences. 13(3), 234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030234
54. [54] Hung, W., 2016. All PBL Starts Here: The Problem. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning. 10(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1604
55. [55] Landau, M.J., Oyserman, D., Keefer, L.A., et al., 2014. The college journey and academic engagement: How metaphor use enhances identity-based motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 106(5), 679–698. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036414
56. [56] Oyserman, D., Destin, M., 2010. Identity-Based Motivation: Implications for Intervention. The Counseling Psychologist. 38(7), 1001–1043. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000010374775
57. [57] Doulougeri, K., Vermunt, J.D., Bombaerts, G., et al., 2024. Challenge-based learning implementation in engineering education: A systematic literature review. Journal of Engineering Education. 113(4), 1076–1106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20588
58. [58] Reeve, J., Jang, H., 2006. What teachers say and do to support students' autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology. 98(1), 209–218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209
59. [59] Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P., et al., 2002. Providing a Rationale in an Autonomy-Supportive Way as a Strategy to Motivate Others During an Uninteresting Activity. Motivation and Emotion. 26, 183–207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021711629417
60. [60] Temple, P., Callender, C., Grove, L., et al., 2016. Managing the student experience in English higher education: Differing responses to market pressures. London Review of Education. 14(1), 33–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.14.1.05
61. [61] Girelli, L., Alivernini, F., Lucidi, F., et al., 2018. Autonomy Supportive Contexts, Autonomous Motivation, and Self-Efficacy Predict Academic Adjustment of First-Year University Students. Frontiers in Education. 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00095
62. [62] Howard, J.L., Bureau, J.S., Guay, F., et al., 2021. Student Motivation and Associated Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis from Self-Determination Theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 16(6), 1300–1323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966789
63. [63] Jeno, L.M., Danielsen, A.G. Raaheim, A., 2018. A prospective investigation of students’ academic achievement and dropout in higher education: a Self-Determination Theory approach. Educational Psychology. 38(9), 1163–1184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1502412
64. [64] Sogunro, O.A., 2014. Motivating Factors for Adult Learners in Higher Education. International Journal of Higher Education. 4(1), 22–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v4n1p22
65. [65] Mulder, K.F., Ferrer, D., Segalas, C.J., et al., 2015. Motivating students and lecturers for education in sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 16(3), 385–401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-03-2014-0033
66. [66] Steiner, S.D., Brock, D.D., Pittz, T.G., et al, 2018. Multi-Disciplinary Involvement in Social Entrepreneurship Education: A Uniquely Threaded Ecosystem. Journal of Ethics & Entrepreneurship. 8, 73–91.
67. [67] Mohedas, I., Sienko, K.H., Daly, S.R., et al., 2020. Students' perceptions of the value of stakeholder engagement during engineering design. Journal of Engineering Education. 109(4), 760–779. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20356
68. [68] Tomlinson, M., 2017. Student perceptions of themselves as ‘consumers’ of higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education. 38(4), 450–467. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015.1113856
69. [69] Gaskins, W.B., Johnson, J., Maltbie, C., et al., 2015. Changing the Learning Environment in the College of Engineering and Applied Science Using Challenge Based Learning. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy. 5(1), 33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v5i1.4138
70. [70] Borg, M., Kembro, J., Notander, J., et al., 2011. Conflict Management in Student Groups - a Teacher’s Perspective in Higher Education. Högre utbildning. 1(2), 111–124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23865/hu.v1.860
71. [71] Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., Salter, A., 2010. Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy. 39(7), 858–868. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006
72. [72] De Wit-de Vries, E., Dolfsma, W.A., Van der Windt, H.J., et al., 2019. Knowledge transfer in university–industry research partnerships: a review. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 44, 1236–1255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9660-x
73. [73] Plewa, C., Korff, N., Johnson, C., et al., 2013. The evolution of university–industry linkages—A framework. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management. 30(1), 21–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2012.11.005
74. [74] Steinmo, M., 2015. Collaboration for Innovation: A Case Study on How Social Capital Mitigates Collaborative Challenges in University–Industry Research Alliances. Industry and Innovation. 22(7), 597–624. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2015.1105127
75. [75] Clavert, M., Jaana, S., Lenagu, G., et al., 2004. Increasing interest towards engineering in the context of Nordic STEM outreach activities. European Journal of Engineering Education. 1–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2024.2440080
76. [76] Pantzos, P., Gumaelius, L., Buckley, J., et al., 2019. On the role of industry contact on the motivation and professional development of engineering students. 2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference; October 16–October 19, 2019; Covington, USA. pp.1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE43999.2019.9028621
77. [77] Eldebo, K., Lundvall, C., Norrman, C., et al., 2022. How to make good teachers great in Challenge-Based Learning.18th International CDIO Conference; June 13–June15, 2022; Reykjavik, Iceland. pp.793–808.

How to Cite

Copyright & License

Copyright © 2025 Panagiotis Pantzos, Arnold Pears, Jeffrey Buckley. Published by Nature and Information Engineering Publishing Sdn. Bhd..

Article Metrics