746 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 67, NO.

5, OCTOBER 2024

Challenge-Based Learning for Competency

Development in Engineering Education, a
Prisma-Based Systematic Literature Review
Andreia Leles , Luciana Zaina , and José Roberto Cardoso , Life Member, IEEE

Abstract—The teaching-learning process in engineering aims of the teaching-learning process, with the aim of addressing
to meet current societal demands and address real challenges issues within real-world social and business contexts [1].
faced by businesses and the job market. Challenge-based learning Students are required to collaborate in teams to solve chal-
(CBL) has gained traction as an active and innovative approach
in engineering education, introducing real challenges and open lenges, using multidisciplinary knowledge under the guidance
questions to the classroom regarding environmental sustainability of professors, experts, and industry professionals. The edu-
and issues faced by Industry 4.0. These challenges require cational design and context of challenges can be open and
resources and technology that turn the teaching-learning process integrated with societal and market demand, fostering an
into an open system, demanding partnerships beyond academia authentic learning experience [2].
for validating deliverables and projects. Following the PRISMA
2020 guidelines, this study aimed to systematically analyze CBL is related to other active methods, problem-based
the implementation and implications of CBL for competencies learning (PBL), scenario-based learning (SBL) and project-
development. Following the inclusion and exclusion criteria of based learning (PjBL), all designed to acquire or mobilize
the PRISMA method, 62 articles were used for abstract analyses knowledge [6]. In a PBL pedagogical approach, teachers
to identify methods, workload, resources, structure, technology, present defined problems to students. The focus is on acquiring
and stakeholder integration, as well as to answer the research
questions. The studies were categorized into three types of applied knowledge by trying to find a solution to the problem, either
challenges: 1) social and environmental sustainability; 2) Industry working in pairs or teams within the classroom. SBL places
4.0; and 3) those related to Educational Institutions. A total of the problem in scenarios that mirror the real world, intro-
46 articles were analyzed in their entirety, and summarized in ducing inherent challenges, such as environmental settings,
three tables. All analyzed studies showed that CBL is effective stakeholders, and risks [7]. However, the primary goal is still
according to summative and formative assessments, leading
to sociotechnical competencies development through experience the acquisition of knowledge. In contrast, PjBL and CBL
with real-world challenges, teamwork, and interaction with are focused on mobilizing acquired skills and experiences to
external partners. As most studies are qualitative, there is room solve problems and challenges in real-world contexts. PBL
for quantitative investigations to better justify the relevance of introduces project and product management in the learning
CBL, especially in terms of adaptive and personalized learning. cycle, with the solution to the problem being developed as a
Moreover, the workload and complexity imposed by CBL,
particularly on teachers, warrant further study to facilitate project and executed in a team, an approach that mirrors what
implementation and engagement. students may encounter in the job market [6]. CBL is based on
real, open challenges developed through collaboration amongst
Index Terms—Active methodology, competencies, engineering
education, innovation in education, real challenges. teachers, industry and society, reflecting the demands of the
real job market as well as social and environmental demands.
This model allows students to interact with different stake-
I. I NTRODUCTION
holders while seeking for solutions for unexpected problems
HALLENGE-BASED LEARNING (CBL) is an active
C teaching methodology that places the student at the core
that come up along the way [5], [6].
CBL aims to develop skills that meet the demands of
the real world by facilitating solutions that entail creating
Manuscript received 9 October 2023; revised 12 April 2024; accepted
12 June 2024. Date of publication 16 July 2024; date of current ver- projects to produce authentic and complex experiences. With
sion 8 October 2024. This work was supported in part by the Conselho this approach, students can acquire and develop specific
Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico—Brazil, under Grnat technical skills, including teamwork, communication, and
CNPq 309497/2022-1, and in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento
de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001. creativity; they also learn to apply systemic development to
(Corresponding author: Andreia Leles.) problem solving, meeting real-world requirements and stake-
Andreia Leles is with the Depto Engenharia de Computação, Centro holder relationships [2]. Although studies indicate that CBL
Universitário FACENS, Sorocaba 18087, Brazil, and also with the
Universidade de São Paulo—Escola Politécnica, São Paulo 05508, Brazil enhances student motivation, some researchers have high-
(e-mail: [email protected]). lighted the potential for stress and discouragement [3], [4].
Luciana Zaina is with the Depto de Computação, Universidade Federal Although professors have observed improvements in per-
de São Carlos—Campus Sorocaba, Sorocaba 18052, Brazil (e-mail:
[email protected]). ceived learning, they also point out drawbacks, such as
José Roberto Cardoso is with the Universidade de São Paulo—Escola the increased need for resources, time, and dedication,
Politécnica, São Paulo 05508, Brazil (e-mail: [email protected]). required to create and conduct challenges. In addition,
This article has supplementary downloadable material available at
https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2024.3417908, provided by the authors. there is a lack of resources, including laboratories and
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TE.2024.3417908 spaces, dedicated to carrying out the challenges, as well as

c 2024 The Authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
LELES et al.: CBL FOR COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION 747

TABLE I
technology-based tools to measure the solutions and developed R ESEARCH Q UESTIONS
competencies [3].
Several reviews have investigated the methods used to inte-
grate CBL into the curriculum. However, there is still a need to
systematize the current state of implementation and its impli-
cations in terms of workload, resources, structure, technology,
and stakeholder integration throughout the teaching-learning
process. Additionally, there is a lack of support for teachers
and students to understand the CBL method. The aim of a structured approach for continuous feedback. This scenario
this study was to conduct a systematic literature review hinders the transition from the traditional teaching approach
to identify and address research gaps. The study provides to CBL.
information on the resources and technologies used by partners
and educational institutions (EIs) to implement CBL, and III. M ETHODS
to assess the outcomes regarding solutions and generated
competencies, both formatively and summatively. This article A systematic literature review was employed as the research
is divided into eight sections. Following this introduction, there method to ensure reproducibility and quality. This approach
are seven additional parts. Section II presents the key findings involves a structured process for documenting both the steps
from previous reviews. Section III describes the systematic undertaken and the obtained results. For this purpose, the
method used in this research. Section IV details the applied preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-
methodology. Section V addresses and discusses the research analysis protocols (PRISMA) method was used, due to its wide
questions. Section VI explores the topics beyond the research acceptance in several research fields for facilitating systematic
questions. Section VII provides a qualitative comparison literature review [9], [10].
between related works and this study, offering further contri-
butions. Section VIII presents conclusions and outlines future A. Research Questions
perspectives. Reflecting on the research gaps (see Section II), two
research questions were defined (Table I).

II. R ELATED W ORK

B. Research Process
To find published reviews on CBL, the following databases
An exploratory analysis was conducted within the Google
were used: Web of science (WOS), Scopus, IEEE, and
Scholar database to identify keywords in publications related
ACM. The search query was “CBL,” and the two fil-
to the study. The search query “CBL” resulted in 4473 hits.
ters were document type = “review” and source type =
As Section II indicated that research on CBL in engineering
“journal.” WOS identified five studies and Scopus found
has increased since 2017, this analysis encompassed the period
three, one being a duplicate and three unrelated to engi-
from 2017 to August 2023. Two control manuscripts related
neering. No relevant reviews were retrieved in the IEEE
to engineering education were considered relevant as they are
and ACM databases. Therefore, three articles were evaluated
aligned with the research topic. To ensure scientific rigor,
in their entirety. The analyzed systematic reviews aimed to
two journal articles were selected based on their relevance,
differentiate and correlate CBL with PjBL and PBL across var-
appearing on the first two result pages [1], [12]. An analysis
ious dimensions [5], [6], emphasizing their origins, features,
of specified keywords indicated the following most frequent
and integration strategies into the university curriculum [8].
terms: “active learning,” “CBL,” “higher education,” and
Although the first study on CBL appeared in 2001, research
“engineering.” These were used as a guideline for defining the
was only intensified after 2017 [6]. All studies agree that
search terms of the present study: “CBL” and “engineering.”
CBL enhances competencies, offering different assessment
The Scopus and WOS databases were selected for their diverse
methods. These include formative assessments during the
range of relevant peer-reviewed publications. The search terms
training period and, in most cases, a summative assessment
were validated using control articles before applying the
upon completion.
selection criteria and procedures.
Despite its orientation toward real-world applicability,
which prepares students for the job market, CBL encoun-
ters challenges in evaluating solutions and competency C. Selection Criteria
development, as highlighted by systematic reviews [5], [8]. This study included publications in English from 2017
Furthermore, collaboration with partners and stakeholders is to August 2023, from peer-reviewed engineering journals to
difficult due to a scarcity of resources and technologies neces- capture the most recent and relevant research on CBL for
sary for implementing CBL. Generally, partners are involved this study. Duplicate articles were removed after compiling
in summative but not formative evaluations, which can result the results into an Excel spreadsheet, using the title as the
in a discrepancy between the developed solution and the actual main identifier. Review and synthesis articles were excluded
real-world challenge [6]. Other concerns include the difficulty after reviewing their abstracts, and only primary research
for students, professors, institutions, and partners to implement articles were included. Fig. 1 illustrates the database search
CBL, due to the workload, insufficient training, and the lack of and selection criteria of the 62 articles identified during
748 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 67, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2024

IV. S YSTEMATIC L ITERATURE R EVIEW R ESULTS

Upon reviewing the main databases and using the
VOSViewer tool, a bibliographic data map was created based
on the keywords from the 62 articles. Keywords appearing
in at least two articles were included to capture both the
least and most frequent ones. “Network Visualization” mode
was chosen to generate a map, which allowed the clustering
of keywords. This analysis resulted in six distinct clusters,
differentiated by color (Fig. 2). Cluster 1 (red) and cluster
3 (dark blue) encompass 27 keywords, including experiential
learning, competency-based education (CBE), sustainability,
Industry 4.0, and educational innovation. Clusters 6 (light
blue), 2 (green), and 5 (purple) encompass 16 keywords.
They include engineering education resources, specifically
mentioning some active methodologies. Finally, cluster 4
(yellow) has 10 keywords, including teaching methodologies
emphasizing items, such as professional aspects, teamwork,
PjBL, and engineering research.

A. Quality Result Evaluation

The bibliometric map depicted in Fig. 2 was used as a
foundational tool for structuring the data analysis to assess
the quality of the selected articles. The clusters provided
insights for categorizing the articles into types of challenges
and establishing the dimensions outlined in Tables II–IV for
comparative and tabular analysis. Clusters 1 and 3 were used
Fig. 1. Data collection and analysis process—Prisma method.
to categorize the origin of the open challenges of CBL into
“Sustainability (SGD),” “Industry 4.0 (I4.0),” and EI. The
methodologies applied, shown in columns 4, 5, and 6, spotlight
active learning methods and resources (clusters 2 and 5).
the initial screening. After applying manual inclusion and
Assessment approaches are presented in column 7 (clusters 4,
exclusion criteria, 46 articles were analyzed in their entirety.
5, and 6). By separating the articles into Tables II–IV, it was
possible to address the research questions and elucidate the
implementation of CBL-based approaches based on challenge
origin.
D. Data Collection and Analysis Tables II–IV present a subclassification for a systematic
Data from articles were extracted from Scopus and and comparative analysis of the resources, methods, and
WOS databases and compiled in MS Excel. The collected assessment approaches employed in the CBL studies. Under
data included title, authors, keywords, year of publication, “Method,” the goal was to understand which active methods
and abstract. Due to heterogeneity and complexity of the complement CBL. In Fig. 2, the emphasis was on competency-
information, it was essential to structure the data to understand based education (CBE) or ComBL, PjBL, experiential learning
the implementation and outcomes of CBL. This structuring (EP), and experimental learning (EX), all considered in the
was particularly important for analyzing solutions and com- analysis. The “Resource” category examined “Integration”
petencies generated, focusing on aspects, such as challenges, (INT) with stakeholders and the Learning Environment, which
methods, resources, the evaluation process, and collaboration could be a space or laboratory (SP/L). The goal was to
between EIs and external actors. A bibliometric analysis was understand if collaboration with stakeholders was “Virtual”
carried out using the VOSViewer tool. Collected keywords (V) or “Real” (R), and in the latter case, whether it involved
were grouped into clusters to guide this article analyses. a “Space” (SP) or “Laboratory” (L). It was also important
The clusters were reviewed and categorized based on the to determine if the location relative to the university was
identified challenges, which fell into three categories: 1) “External” (E) or “Internal” (I). The “Assessment” category
environmental and social sustainability; 2) Industry 4.0; and was delineated by type as “Diagnostic” (D), “Formative”
3) challenges created by EIs. To ensure the integrity of the (F), “Summative” (S), and also by the object of assessment
data collection and analysis process, tasks were divided among as “Solution” (SO) or “Competencies” (C). The columns
team members. One researcher extracted and categorized the “Methodology,” “Active Methods,” and “Resources” were
data and a second researcher revised the work. In cases marked as either “Not Applicable” (N/A) or “Applicable”
of disagreement or potential of bias, a third researcher was (A) to map the analyzed item. Column 3 outlines the educa-
consulted for resolution. tional level of the study participants, including graduates (PG),
LELES et al.: CBL FOR COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION 749

Fig. 2. Bibliometric analysis map of CBL research articles, based on the occurrence of keywords within six clusters.

undergraduates (G), and High School or technical education of which were relevant to the study’s objectives. Therefore,
(TE). the primary concern of the authors was the potential exclu-
sion of information from conference articles. Nonetheless,
B. Protocol Limitations the decision to concentrate exclusively on journal articles
was made based on their comprehensive details, consistency
The research questions posed in this study cannot be objec- in results, and the observation that many journal articles
tively addressed with a binary answer. A nuanced approach are extensions of conference presentations, offering deeper
was required, necessitating a set of criteria for systematic insights.
categorization and standardization of research articles, as
delineated in Tables II–IV. This review acknowledges the
V. F INDINGS
inherent limitations of the systematic review process, includ-
ing potential research scope and bias in article selection. The results are divided into two topics, based on the answers
However, the following selection criteria for articles inclusion to the research questions presented in Table I.
were designed to mitigate these concerns: 1) exploratory
phase; 2) summarization of studies by clusters based on A. Research Question 1—Methods and Resources Used in
mapping of articles via VOSViewer; 3) exclusive inclusion Challenge-Based Learning and Competency-Based Education
of peer-reviewed articles; and 4) involvement of more than Development
one researcher in analyzing the quality of the peer review According to the cluster mapping (Fig. 2), the main active
process. Focusing solely on journal articles raised the issue methods for CBL include Competency-Based Education and
of possibly overlooking valuable insights from book chap- PjBL. The real-world applications of CBL requires students
ters and conference proceedings, which might introduce bias to engage in experiential learning (EP), demanding con-
into the findings. While WOS did not provide any book stant interaction with stakeholders to devise solutions to
information, Scopus only retrieved three book chapters, none challenges [35], [36], [48]. This approach has led to the
750 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 67, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2024

TABLE II
S YSTEMATIC C OMPARATIVE A NALYSIS OF C HALLENGES ON EI: M ETHOD , R ESOURCES , AND A SSESSMENT

coining of terms, such as “interactive approach to learning solution development. In the study, CBL and competency-
engineering,” “work-based learning,” and “innovative peda- based learning (CBE) were applied in a master’s program
gogy” [13], [22], [26]. Similarly, resource-related terms have focused on SDGs - theme 11 (SDG-11), which aims to
been used like “living lab,” “teaching factories,” and “social addresses urban challenges, including safety, resilience,
and innovation labs” [1], [25]. Some studies report the use and sustainability. Cities present a number of unresolved
of scientific methods in challenge development, introducing challenges, a context that favors the application of CBL.
experimental learning into CBL since it involved PG students A process defined in steps has guided professors and
and research projects [1], [13], [14]. external agents to perform interactive and experimental
Studies focusing on “sustainable development goals engineering, generating socio-technical competencies. Another
(SDGs)” and “Industry 4.0 (I4.0)” (see Tables III and IV) study [14] outlined the development of a laboratory called
emphasized Experiential Learning through stakeholder GALEA using real social issues identified by the Industrial
engagement, including mentors, evaluators, and solution University of Santander, focusing on soft skill development
validators, as well as using partners’ processes and in undergraduate groups. The CBL framework followed was
infrastructure. To facilitate these interactions, Rådberg et inspired by Apple’s methodology, as documented by the
al. [1] proposed a challenge lab called Chalmers Challenge University of Monterrey-Mexico through Tec-21 methodology.
Labs, a collaborative space involving universities, companies, Tec-21 Innovation Semester (i-Semester) methodology is a
and the public sector in a neutral external space, with semester-long challenge that aims to generate innovative
educational and technological resources employing a CDIO solutions and develop competencies. Therefore, PjBL was
2.0 (Conceive, Design, Implement, Operate) methodology for incorporated into the learning cycle through Design Thinking,
LELES et al.: CBL FOR COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION 751

TABLE III
S YSTEMATIC C OMPARATIVE A NALYSIS OF C HALLENGES ON I NDUSTRY 4.0: M ETHOD , R ESOURCES , AND A SSESSMENT

TABLE IV
S YSTEMATIC C OMPARATIVE A NALYSIS OF C HALLENGES ON S USTAINABILITY: M ETHOD , R ESOURCES , AND A SSESSMENT

project management methods, and the scientific method. developing competencies [30], [31]. Tec-21 facilitates CBL
Local and global challenges were used within the EI with a structured cycle of Exploration (Act), Focus (Engage),
while others were employed at partner companies which and Specialization (Investigate) [50].
financed the project [15], [22], [46]. Using the physical In a study by Colombari and Neirotti [25], an indus-
and process infrastructure of industry partners, alongside trial challenge involved Universities, High Schools, and the
dedicated spaces or labs for real-world challenges enables Industry to develop emerging and intermediate competencies
CBL initiatives focused on SDGs or Industry 4.0. The Tec- in areas, such as smart energy grids. This “Research and
21 educational model, which includes both the Innovation Action” method was implemented in two cycles: 1) the
Semester (i-Semester) and Innovation Week (i-Week), has first mapped competencies and 2) the second executed the
proven effective as an elective course for students to develop challenge over a week at the University in collaboration with
competencies. The i-Week allows students to tackle a an industrial partner. This challenge took place in a living
challenge within five days, totaling 40 h, enhancing its laboratory or teaching factory, providing High School students
application in undergraduate and elective courses aimed at with hands-on university and industry experience. Another
752 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 67, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2024

study focused on creating CBL teaching methodologies based B. Research Question 2: Challenge-Based Learning Results
on industrial processes [26]. The lean-thinking-learning space Assessment
(LTLS) introduced work-based learning to the Experimental Assessing CBL, particularly at the Undergraduate level, is
Learning scenario. Additionally, Luna et al. [27] developed a a challenging task that requires careful attention regarding
CBL methodology centered on the pillars of trust, integration, both timing and focus of the evaluation. According to data
communication, and collaboration (ITC2 ). They evaluated the summarized in Tables II–IV, CBL assessment can be categorized
impact of project outcomes by developing solutions to real- by type (diagnostic, formative, and summative) and by object
world challenges, supported by tools and technology, such (competency or solution) [2]. Given the involvement of several
as serious games and gamified supply chain management stakeholders, professors, external partners, and students, each
processes. Integrating engineering processes with CBL has bringing their unique experiences, evaluation becomes increas-
been effectively implemented in all the challenges within the ingly complex, requiring a systematized process supported
context of I4.0, similar to the Concurrent Engineering method by technology. The “Diagnostic” assessment is designed to
discussed in the study by Lopez-Fernandez et al. [3]. Modeling measure and evaluate students’ knowledge and skills before
and simulating industrial processes have also provided alterna- they undertake the challenge. The “Formative” assessment
tives for contextualizing reality [23], [24], and for measuring monitors the development of solutions and competencies in
user experience in CBL [28]. iterative cycles, providing feedback and recommendations to
For the articles classified under EI on Table II, the focus students. This ongoing evaluation helps refine the teaching-
was on evaluating the effectiveness of the CBL method inde- learning process according to the learning objectives defined in
pendent from CBE [4]. This includes measuring competencies the teaching plan. The “Summative” assessment is conducted at
(Marzano and Kendall method) [32], assessing how chal- the end of the process, evaluating the overall teaching-learning
lenge choice influences student motivation [33], and exploring process, developed of competencies, and the outcomes of the
ways to facilitate collaborative work and teamwork through solutions.
CBL [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. Universities have also used
There are several tools and methods for assessing compe-
CBL to foster competencies linked to specific challenges,
tencies in CBL. For instance, Membrillo-Hernández et al. [2]
such as global collaborative behavior [51], ethical applica-
applied CBL and used CANVAS as a Learning Management
tions in engineering projects [51], [52], decision making [41],
System, REMIND for communicating with stakeholders, and
and the cultivation of an entrepreneurial mindset [39], [40].
for competency assessment, employing the eLUMEN plat-
Similarly, the fundamentals and application of complex and
form. Garay-Rondero et al. [26] mentioned the system for
emerging concepts, such as Web development, fuzzy logic, and
the administration of programs evaluations (SAEP), which
cybersecurity, are incorporated into CBL linked to engineering
tracks competencies development and validates hypotheses
processes, as shown in [32], [45], [50]. To stimulate collab-
during experiments. Vargas-Mendoza et al. [32] cited the
oration, communication tools, such as slack, canvas, remind,
Marzano and Kendall method, which allows competency grad-
and zoom, were highlighted in some studies [2], [3]. Platforms
ing and simplifies the measurement process. López-Guajardo
integrating stakeholders and websites have also been cited [1],
et al. [37] presented the assessment center (ADA) method,
[14], [26], [32]. One study successfully applied CBL to a space
which also tracks competency development through a cycle of
engineering challenge, noting significant improvements in
debate during CBL sessions. Gudoniene et al. [13] noted that
motivation and the teacher–student relationship [3]. However,
educational technologies incorporating artificial intelligence
it suggested that future implementations should focus more on
(AI) have been used to provide adaptive and personalized
enhancing organizational resources and instruments. In three
learning paths. Likewise, Luna et al. [27] used games and
studies applying the Tec-21 educational model, the challenges
gamification resources to adapt and personalize the teaching
addressed SDGs. To develop solutions, specific project man-
and learning process. Despite these advancements, adaptive
agement methods were used. Two studies [12], [13] proposed
assessment instruments, which could further enhance for-
incorporating an open learning approach within CBL, fostering
mative and summative assessments, have not been widely
collaboration among students, professors, the public sector,
applied.
industries, and universities. This approach included integrating
All reviewed studies assessed CBL in the context of
the project planning, development, and management platform
competency-based education (CBE), demonstrating its strong
(PPD&M) method into the learning modules. In the other
link to competency development, with solutions emerging
study, Dieck-Assad et al. [15] introduced the five-helix innova-
as a byproduct (see Tables II–IV). Nevertheless, challenges
tion framework (Tec-21-Helix-model), seeking to integrate the
focusing on SDGs and Industry 4.0 extended the assessment
same stakeholders mentioned by Gudoniene et al. [13]. The
to include both competency development and solution quality.
training of engineering students to tackle global challenges
In these cases, living laboratories have integrated CBL into
supported by the SDG framework is already a reality, including
engineering project development and management cycles, as
in online education [16], [17], [18], [19], [47]. However, there
used in industry [1], [3], [22], [26], [27], [29].
is a need to simulate real environments using technologies.
The challenges were specifically aimed at achieving the Iterative and incremental assessment methods from project
SDGs. The main outcome from using the SDG framework management processes have been highlighted, and qual-
included the development of socio-emotional, technical and ity assessment methods in engineering, such as the Lean
sustainability-related competencies, thus preparing students to approach, have been used to evaluate the solutions. For
work in current and real-world contexts. instance, Garay-Rondero et al. [26] reported that the
LELES et al.: CBL FOR COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION 753

thinking-learning space (LTLS) living lab improved results and highlighted the importance of adding the principles of
by 29% when compared to the traditional classroom teaching ethics [51], [52], entrepreneurship [39], [40] and argumen-
method. The LTLS method which incorporates Lean manu- tation techniques [37] to the transversal competencies. In
facturing principles like Jidoka, Kanban, and the Pull System, CBL, technology has been used to map or solve engineering
also integrates digital tools for interactive activities with exter- problems. Therefore, studies have shown how to integrate CBL
nal partners, transforming open challenges into experiential with the use and development of AI [13], mobile applications,
production contexts. In another study [29], CBL was applied social networks [35], Web platforms [32] and fuzzy logic [50].
to an IT challenge, focusing on meeting the stakeholders’ These technologies can optimize processes and contribute to
expectations regarding time, cost, and scope. This involved achieving project goals. According to the studies classified in
enhancing software development processes and applying the Tables II–IV, it can be concluded that mapping and solving
standard CMMI appraisal method for process improvement complex problems arising from Industry 4.0 [20] and the
(SCAMPI-CMMI) method, which showed improved solution SDGs [48] can be integrated into the scope of transversal
results with impacts ranging from 51 to 70%, according to the competencies developed when applying CBL.
Chaos Report metrics, which determines metrics in relation
to cost, scope, and project deadlines. In the study by Luna et VI. G ENERAL D ISCUSSION
al. [27], the proposal was to evaluate solution results by the
Based on the findings of this study, future directions within
return on investment (ROI) indicator, widely used to analyze
CBL research are proposed.
project and product viability.
Some studies have highlighted the post-experiment benefits
of CBL, noting that students secured internship positions and A. Importance of Frameworks and Educational Models for
participated in in-company projects, as a result, [20], [21]. Co-Creating Open Challenges and Implementing CBL
Participation and publications of scientific papers in con- Frameworks and Educational Models were extensively dis-
gresses have also been reported [27]. Lara-Prieto and cussed in Tables III and IV, which present processes, methods,
Niño-Juárez [38] proposed an assessment center specific for and tools that prioritize the development of open challenges
CBL applications, where students are evaluated on diagnosis, through co-creation and collaboration among teachers, men-
prediction, and development skills. This assessment center acts tors, and external partners. In one study [1], the “2030
as a bridge for integration with business partners, facilitat- Agenda” was mentioned, which connects the 17 UN SDGs to
ing recruitment, selection, and potential employability. These be achieved by 2030 that should be considered in engineering
findings illustrate the broad scope and positive impact of education. Therefore, when analyzing Table III, all educational
CBL. In terms of learning, an assessment center focuses on frameworks and models either cite or relate to the SDGs.
selection and professional development processes and is used Thus, the SDGs become the reference or starting point for
for recruitment and selection. An assessment center in CBL the co-creation of the open challenge. For instance, the SDGs,
would offer resources for engaging corporate human resource theme-11 (SDG-11) seeks to ensure more sustainable cities
departments, assessing students’ competencies, and exposing and communities, and practically encompasses other SDGs,
them to real-world professional challenges. such as health, education, and infrastructure [1]. By taking
Finally, the CBL emphasizes developing transversal or inter- the SDG-11 into consideration, CBL can follow processes,
disciplinary competencies, characterized by socio-emotional such as “engage,” “investigate,” and “act” [1] or “prepara-
and technological competencies [2], [20], [32], [37]. In tion,” “formulation,” and “conception,” where “engage” and
this sense, the highlight is the development of communica- “formulation,” are activities to map the open challenge related
tion, aimed at teamwork and relationships with stakeholders, to the SDGs [13]. In challenges presented in frameworks
especially to map the challenge and conduct projects col- related to Industry 4.0, there is also a “research” stage and
laboratively in a real context [15], [43]. Therefore, efficient hypothesis formulation, as discussed in the manufacturing
communication, resilience, critical and systemic thinking, challenges [26] and in engineering and mechatronics [20].
mapping complex problems collaboratively and globally, were The “Action” stages involve experiential and PjBL to facilitate
skills highlighted in the studies [2], [37], [48]. Technology, real competency-based education (CBE). Table II also addresses
Industry 4.0 processes [22], [26] [27] and environmental and open challenges but aims to create methods, techniques, and
social challenges were inserted into the CBL [3], [13]. This tools with the intention of incorporating ethical aspects [52],
approach has brought more engagement and understanding entrepreneurship [39], [40], technology [36], [50], argumenta-
of the role of an engineer in a professional context. The tive communication, collaboration [37], and teamwork [43] in
complexity of the real environment allows for the devel- the co-creation and action stages. CBL is similar to SBL (see
opment of competencies, such as “self-learning,” managing Table II). SBL addresses scenarios for identifying problems
previous knowledge and strengthening tolerance to ambiguous and may also involve partnerships, but when treated in an
situations [32]. Experience in a real environment generates investigative manner and the challenge is characterized as
professional experience and preparation for the job market. “open,” the learning is designated as CBL. Most studies
Therefore, the development of competencies can be assessed used case study, qualitative analysis, and longitudinal analysis
based on the partial results of a project and the final as scientific methodologies. Students were the most ana-
solution [20], [27]. Some studies have implemented CBL lyzed actors along with their competencies. Little emphasis
754 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 67, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2024

was given to gender and socioeconomic profile, but when and real spaces [26], [33]. Discussions on student behavior
mentioned, the majority are men. Another point that was in innovative learning environments proposed by CBL have
different from other categories was the number of teachers, highlighted the need for acknowledging student personal per-
mentors, and partners in the experiments. In one study [38], ceptions and metacognition in future studies. This suggests a
203 students, 80 professors, and 60 external evaluators from direction for future research to focus on training both teachers
Industry participated in the challenge. Other studies always and students to effectively implement CBL. While some
mention 2 or more teachers and partners. Therefore, in authors have mentioned a learning management department
addition to technological and laboratory resources, there is a to evaluate results and provide support [27], there was no
need for human resources, which may require training and detailed discussion on its effectiveness. Other studies have
communication for involvement in CBL. indicated the implementation of teacher training [20], [22], but
The partnership between the Academy and Industry is detailed outcomes and training content were not discussed.
essential for enabling the CBL adoption. The shape of part- Additionally, the influence of teacher beliefs on the teaching-
nerships is guided by the CBL goals and involves the creation learning process was recognized as significant in another study,
of an educational context that promotes the co-creation of but it lacked focus on the necessary support and training [49].
solutions for challenges while introducing an experimental and Only one study [34] presented details on the process
experiential environment for the participants [41], [48]. As the of training TE teachers over two years in an innovative,
complexity presented in the practical contexts is considered in entrepreneurship-based way. The goal was to equip High
CBL, the partners should work together following a systematic School STEM teachers (Science, Technology, Engineering,
and collaborative approach. The university and the external and Mathematics) with CBL methodologies to tackle the
partner (e.g., company) select challenges that represent a com- difficulties in teaching and learning mathematics. To this
mon interest. In a synergistic way, universities work to develop end, courses, lectures, and workshops were held, offering
a set of requested competencies and achieve the learning teachers practical experience in CBL. The core challenge for
objectives [29], and the external partners search for solu- the teachers was to develop an educational solution from
tions for a problem or even recruit competent professionals. entrepreneurial concepts and practices.
Therefore, external partners often have an interest in investing
in the construction of CBL workspaces in-company or in
universities [22], [28]. In turn, the universities are required D. Comparative Studies on Traditional Versus Dedicated
to count on experienced professors in CBL and manage the Challenge-Based Learning Environments
conduction of CBL projects and activities, prospect external Some studies have made explicit the need to assess whether
partners, and foster these relationships [48]. CBL is better than traditional teaching [20]. In the study by
Vargas-Mendoza et al. [32], a website was used to facilitate a
B. Impact of Adaptive Learning Assessment and Teaching challenge, and the authors concluded that students performed
Personalization Within Challenge-Based Learning better with CBL compared to methods used in previous
semesters. Although the authors used Marzano and Kendall’s
The importance of adaptability and personalization in the taxonomy to assess competencies, they did not elaborate
teaching-learning process has been recognized in some stud- on the methods that preceded their experience with CBL.
ies [13], [27], yet, neither these nor other studies reviewed Therefore, future studies can focus on the factors that improve
have extensively applied or detailed a personalized and adapt- competency development to target possible shortcomings of
able educational approach within CBL. The use of diagnostic, traditional teaching. Furthermore, quantitative analysis in a
formative, and summative assessments suggests an underlying study by Garay-Rondero et al. [26] showed that labs or
objective of continuously monitoring the learning process to dedicated CBL environments enhanced skill development
tailor and adjust the educational path according to individual compared to traditional classroom settings. However, the
learning preferences [2]. Hence, studying technology and tools authors stressed the importance of replicating the proposed
that facilitate adaptability and customization could be the focal method and refining assessment instruments to ensure a solid
point for future research. evaluation baseline for CBL results.

C. Studies on the Importance of Developing and Training

Students and Professors for Challenge-Based Learning VII. C OMPARISON OF R ESULTS W ITH R ELATED W ORK
Achievement Three related review papers were analyzed [5], [6], [8],
Membrillo-Hernández et al. [2] noted that evaluating CBL all of which confirm a growing trend in engineering educa-
is challenging, as it requires assessing not only the students but tion to adopt CBL, particularly for its capacity to immerse
also the entire educational environment, including professors, students in real-world contexts and complex STEM-related
resources, and stakeholders. Difficulties, such as an over- problem-solving. Leijon et al. [5] pointed out that CBL is
whelming workload, conflicts with other academic activities, closely related to other active methods, including PjBL and
and insufficient time for team integration, were identified as collaborative learning. Conde et al. [8] further highlighted
negative aspects [15]. Furthermore, the impact of the learning the importance of CBL for 21st-century skills acquisition.
environment on students’ and professors’ perceptions and Gallagher and Savage [6] defined eight CBL characteristics,
identities has been explored in studies involving living labs which serve as the basis for its implementation: “global
LELES et al.: CBL FOR COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION 755

themes, real-world challenges, collaboration, technology, flexi- to ensure that these requirements do not overburden those
bility, multidisciplinarity and disciplinary specificity, creativity responsible for executing and assessing the learning process.
and innovation, and challenge setting.” Building on previous As discussed in Section VI, the significance of training both
scientific research, this article aimed to advance the study of professors and students in CBL has been emphasized in several
CBL by detailing methods, resources, and ways to evaluate studies. While various support modules and platforms have
outcomes. The categorization of challenges into specific areas, been introduced, the need for comprehensive training remains
such as SDGs, Industry 4.0, and their integration within a critical topic for future research. Additionally, future studies
engineering education demonstrates an evolution from ear- should explore adaptable strategies for educators and learners
lier reviews, highlighting the real-world application of CBL within the CBL framework. These strategies should aim to
(see Tables II–IV). This categorization represents an effort to effectively manage competencies and enhance the evaluation
systematically organize the scientific literature. Various forms of outcomes, ensuring that CBL remains a viable and effective
of rubric-based assessment have been discussed [6], with an educational approach.
emphasis on summative and formative assessments. However,
these discussions also identify a research gap concerning the A PPENDIX
satisfaction of external stakeholders with the outcomes of P ROTOCOL FOR THE STUDY
challenges. Furthermore, while another study [5] emphasizes
the importance of skill developing though CBL, there was Please see the supplementary material.
no in-depth discussion in relation to the applied methods and
tools. AUTHOR C ONTRIBUTIONS
Andreia Leles: Conceptualization, formal analysis, investi-
gation, methodology, writing—original draft, writing—review
VIII. C ONCLUSION and editing. Luciana Zaina: Methodology, validation,
This systematic review analyzed 46 articles on the subject and writing—review and editing. José Roberto Cardoso:
of CBL within engineering, seeking to include previous review Conceptualization, methodology, supervision, validation, and
studies. The main contributions of this review were 1) the writing—review and editing.
application of CBL in engineering education; 2) categorization
of CBL by challenges by origin; and 3) promoting the C ONFLICT OF I NTEREST
discussion on necessary resources, methods, and forms of
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
assessment by challenge type, as detailed in Tables II–IV.
Specifically, when challenges are related to Industry 4.0 (I4.0)
and SDGs involving external stakeholders, more systematized ACKNOWLEDGMENT
structures are required. These include living labs and environ- The authors would like to thank the technical support from
ments dedicated to CBL, necessitating significant integration the Centro Universitário FACENS and the Universidade de
between stakeholders and the development of solutions with São Paulo.
clear and measurable quality indicators. Drawing from this
review, a framework was developed to map related methods, R EFERENCES
resources, and forms of assessment, as shown in the referenced [1] K. K. Rådberg, U. Lundqvist, J. Malmqvist, and O. H. Svensson, “From
tables. This framework can serve as a guide for future CDIO to challenge-based learning experiences—Expanding student
studies looking to implement CBL in engineering, tailored learning as well as societal impact?” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 45, no. 1,
pp. 22–37, 2020.
to the specific origins of the challenges involved. Sidhu et [2] J. Membrillo-Hernández, M. de J. Ramírez-Cadena,
al. [4] demonstrated that CBL, when in conjunction with A. Ramírez-Medrano, R. M. G. Garcia-Castelan, and R. Garcia-Garcia,
competency-based learning (CBE), yields more significant “Implementation of the challenge-based learning approach in academic
engineering programs,” Int. J. Interact. Design Manuf., vol. 15,
results since applying challenges without working on the nos. 2–3, pp. 287–298, 2021.
competencies can undermine learning objectives and even [3] D. Lopez-Fernandez, P. S. Sanchez, J. Fernandez, I. Tinao, and
fail to deliver a solution. The findings of the present review V. Lapuerta, “Challenge-based learning in aerospace engineering edu-
cation: The ESA concurrent engineering challenge at the technical
align with this perspective, as all reviewed articles emphasized university of Madrid,” Acta Astronaut, vol. 171, pp. 369–377, Jun. 2020.
competency development as a key outcome. Particularly in [4] G. Sidhu, S. Srinivasan, and N. Muhammad, “Challenge-based and
studies involving Industry 4.0 (I4.0) or SDGs stakeholders, competency-based assessments in an undergraduate programming
course,” Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn., vol. 16, no. 13, pp. 17–28, 2021.
there was a notable focus on the quality of solution outcomes, [5] M. Leijon, P. Gudmundsson, P. Staaf, and C. Christersson, “Challenge
using engineering and project management methods to gauge based learning in higher education-A systematic literature review,” Innov.
results. Therefore, assessing competencies before, during, and Educ. Teach. Int., vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 609–618, 2022.
[6] S. E. Gallagher and T. Savage, “Challenge-based learning in higher
after engaging with CBL can be crucial for achieving the education: An exploratory literature review,” Teach. Higher Educ.,
desired competency development and subsequent challenge vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 1135–1157, 2023.
solution. Lopez-Fernandez et al. [3] proposed that assessment [7] S. Erol, A. Jäger, P. Hold, K. Ott, and W. Sihn, “Tangible Industry
4.0: A scenario-based approach to learning for the future of produc-
should be diagnostic, formative, and summative, a framework tion,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 54, pp. 13–18, Jan. 2016.
that can guide continuous adjustments and enhancements [8] M. A. Conde, F. J. Rodriguez-Sedano, C. Fernandez-Llamas,
during CBL implementation. J. Goncalves, J. Lima, and F. J. Garcia-Penalvo, “Fostering STEAM
through challenge-based learning, robotics, and physical devices: A sys-
The integration of external stakeholders and frequent eval- tematic mapping literature review,” Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ., vol. 29,
uations are crucial components of CBL. However, it is vital no. 1, pp. 46–65, 2021.
756 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 67, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2024

[9] M. J. Page et al., “PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated [28] Y. Gutiérrez-Martínez, R. Bustamante-Bello, S. A. Navarro-Tuch,
guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews,” BMJ, A. A. López-Aguilar, A. Molina, and I. Á.-I. Longoria, “A challenge-
vol. 372, p. n160, Mar. 2021. based learning experience in industrial engineering in the framework of
[10] L. B. Sina and K. Nazemi, “Visual Analytics for systematic reviews education 4.0,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 17, p. 9867, 2021.
according to PRISMA,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Inf. Visualisation (IV), 2022, [29] E. Juarez, R. Aldeco-Perez, and J. M. Velazquez, “Academic approach
pp. 307–313. to transform organisations: One engineer at a time,” IET Softw., vol. 14,
[11] N. J. Van Eck and L. Waltman, “Bibliometric mapping of the com- no. 2, pp. 106–114, 2020.
putational intelligence field,” Int. J. Uncertain., Fuzziness Knowl. [30] L. C. Felix-Herran, C. Izaguirre-Espinosa, V. Parra-Vega,
Based Syst., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 625–645, 2007. [Online]. Available: A. Sanchez-Orta, V. H. Benitez, and J. Ozoya-Santos, “A challenge-
https://ideas.repec.org/p/ems/eureri/11811.html based learning intensive course for competency development in
[12] E. Lopez-Caudana et al., “A personalized assistance system for undergraduate engineering students: Case study on UAVs,” Electronics,
the location and efficient evacuation in case of emergency: vol. 11, no. 9, p. 1349, 2022.
TECuidamos, a challenge-based learning derived project designed to [31] V. Lara-Prieto and G. E. Flores-Garza, “iWeek experience: The innova-
save lives,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 9, p. 4931, 2022. tion challenges of digital transformation in industry,” Int. J. Inter. Design
[13] D. Gudoniene, A. Paulauskaite-Taraseviciene, A. Daunoriene, and Manuf., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 81–98, 2022.
V. Sukacke, “A case study on emerging learning pathways in SDG- [32] L. Vargas-Mendoza, K. Gallardo-Córdova, and J. L. Gómez-Muñoz, “A
focused engineering studies through applying CBL,” Sustainability, learning environment to stimulate the development of competencies for
vol. 13, no. 15, p. 8495, 2021. mechanical design,” Glob. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 84–90, 2019.
[14] M. L. Torres-Barreto, G. P. C. Castaño, and M. A. Melgarejo, “A learning [33] M. Hendrickx, A. Schuler-Meyer, and C. V. Verhoosel, “The intended
model proposal focused on challenge-based learning,” Adv. Eng. Educ., and unintended impacts on student ownership when realising CBL in
vol. 8, no. 2, p. n2, 2020. mechanical engineering,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 340–357,
[15] G. Dieck-Assad, A. Avila-Ortega, and O. I. G. Pena, “Comparing 2023.
competency assessment in electronics engineering education with and [34] A. R. Kukreti and J. Broering, “An entrepreneurship venture for training
without industry training partner by challenge-based learning oriented k-12 teachers to use engineering as a context for learning,” Educ. Sci.,
to sustainable development goals,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 19, 2021, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 54, 2019.
Art. no. 10721. [35] J. L. M. Carreno and V. A. S. Gutierrez, “Application of the
[16] R. Pérez-Rodríguez et al., “Integrating challenge-based-learning, challenge-based learning methodology applied to students of two sub-
project-based-learning, and computer-aided technologies into industrial jects of the second academic cycle of engineering in geology,” IEEE
engineering teaching: Towards a sustainable development frame- Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje, vol. 16, no. 1,
work,” Integr. Educ.„ vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 198–215, 2022. pp. 29–35, Feb. 2021.
[17] J. Kasch et al., “Distance and presence in interdisciplinary online [36] C. Barrera, M. L. Castello, L. Segui, A. Heredia, and
learning. A challenge-based learning course on sustainable cities of the J. Garcia-Hernandez, “Applying challenge based learning to teach mass
future,” J. Integr. Environ. Sci., vol. 20, no. 1, 2023, Art. no. 2185261. transfer,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 171–180, 2022.
[18] J. Rodriguez-Chueca, A. Molina-Garcia, C. Garcia-Aranda, J. Perez, and [37] E. A. López-Guajardo, R. A. Ramirez-Mendoza, A. Vargas-Martinez,
E. Rodriguez, “Understanding sustainability and the circular economy W. Jianhong, A. Roman-Flores, and G. Zavala, “Argumentative-driven
through flipped classroom and challenge-based learning: An innovative assessments in engineering: A challenge-based learning approach to the
experience in engineering education in Spain,” Environ. Educ. Res., evaluation of competencies,” Int. J. Inter. Design Manuf., vol. 17, no. 1,
vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 238–252, 2020. pp. 79–91, 2023.
[19] A. K. Hogfeldt et al., “Mutual capacity building through north-south [38] V. Lara-Prieto and E. Niño-Juárez, “Assessment center for senior
collaboration using challenge-driven education,” Sustainability, vol. 11, engineering students: In-person and virtual approaches,” Comput. Electr.
no. 24, p. 7236, 2019. Eng., vol. 93, Jul. 2021, Art. no. 107273.
[20] L. C. Felix-Herran, A. E. Rendon-Nava, and J. M. N. Jalil, “Challenge- [39] D. F. Rivas and S. Husein, “Empathy, persuasiveness and knowledge
based learning: An I-semester for experiential learning in mechatronics promote innovative engineering and entrepreneurial skills,” Educ. Chem.
engineering,” Int. J. Inter. Design Manuf., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1367–1383, Eng., vol. 40, pp. 45–55, Jul. 2022.
2019. [40] A. Colombelli, S. Loccisano, A. Panelli, O. A. M. Pennisi, and
[21] R. J. D. Martínez, “Design and implementation of a Semester I F. Serraino, “Entrepreneurship education: The effects of challenge-based
for mechatronics,” Int. J. Inter. Design Manuf., vol. 13, no. 4, learning on the entrepreneurial mindset of university students,” Adm.
pp. 1441–1455, 2019. Sci., vol. 12, no. 1, p. 10, 2022.
[22] J. Membrillo-Hernandez, M. J. Ramirez-Cadena, M. Martinez-Acosta, [41] N. Montés et al., “EXPLORIA, STEAM education at university level
E. Cruz-Gomez, E. Munoz-Diaz, and H. Elizalde, “Challenge based as a new way to teach engineering mechanics in an integrated learning
learning: The importance of world-leading companies as training part- process,” Appl. Sci., vol. 12, no. 10, p. 5105, 2022.
ners,” Int. J. Inter. Design Manuf., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1103–1113, [42] N. Montés et al., “The equilibrium challenge, a new way to teach
2019. engineering mechanics in architecture degrees,” Educ. Sci., vol. 13, no. 4,
[23] M. Á. Martín-Lara and A. Ronda, “Implementation of modeling tools for p. 398, 2023.
teaching biorefinery (Focused on bioethanol production) in biochemical [43] S. Necchi, E. Peña, D. Fonseca, and M. Arnal, “Improving teamwork
engineering courses: Dynamic modeling of batch, semi-batch, and competence applied in the building and construction engineering final
continuous well-stirred bioreactors,” Energies, vol. 13, no. 21, p. 5772, degree project,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 36, no. 1 B, pp. 328–340, 2020.
2020. [44] C. Mesutoglu, D. Bayram-Jacobs, J. Vennix, A. Limburg, and
[24] R. A. Mendez-Romero, D. H. Bueno-Carreno, C. Diez-Fonnegra, and B. Pepin, “Exploring multidisciplinary teamwork of applied physics and
J. M. Redondo, “SIAM-colombia MMC: A challenge-based math engineering students in a challenge-based learning course,” Res. Scie.
modeling learning strategy,” Mathematics, vol. 9, no. 13, p. 1565, 2021. Technol. Educ., pp. 1–19, Dec. 2022.
[25] R. Colombari and P. Neirotti, “Closing the middle-skills gap widened [45] C. La Fleur, B. Hoffman, C. B. Gibson, and N. Buchler, “Team
by digitalization: How technical universities can contribute through performance in a series of regional and national US cybersecurity
challenge-based learning,” Stud. Higher Educ., vol. 47, no. 8, defense competitions: Generalizable effects of training and func-
pp. 1585–1600, 2022. tional role specialization,” Comput. Secur., vol. 104, May 2021,
[26] C. L. Garay-Rondero, E. Z. R. Calvo, and D. E. Salinas-Navarro, Art. no. 102229.
“Experiential learning at lean-thinking-learning space,” Int. J. Inter. [46] A. van den Beemt et al., “Taking the challenge: An exploratory study
Design Manuf., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1129–1144, 2019. of the challenge-based learning context in higher education institutions
[27] A. Luna, M. Chong, and D. Jurburg, “Teaching integration, trust, across three different continents,” Educ. Sci., vol. 13, no. 3, p. 234, 2023.
communication, and collaboration competencies using challenge-based [47] E. Campos, S. D. N. Daruich, J. F. E. de O. la, R. Castano, J. Escamilla,
learning for business and engineering programs,” IEEE Revista and S. Hosseini, “Educational model transition: Student evaluation of
Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje, vol. 17, no. 1, teaching amid the COVID-19 pandemic,” Front. Educ., vol. 7, Oct. 2022,
pp. 89–98, Feb. 2022. Art. no. 991654.
LELES et al.: CBL FOR COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION 757

[48] J. Membrillo-Hernández, W. Cuervo-Bejarano, L. Manzano, [51] D. A. Martin, E. Conlon, and B. Bowe, “Using case studies in
P. Caratozzolo, and P. Vazquez-Villegas, “Global shared learning engineering ethics education: The case for immersive scenarios through
classroom model: A pedagogical strategy for sustainable competencies stakeholder engagement and real life data,” Australas. J. Eng. Edu.,
development in higher education,” Int. J. Eng. Pedagogy, vol. 13, no. 1, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 47–63, 2021.
pp. 20–33, 2023. [52] G. Bombaerts, K. Doulougeri, S. Tsui, E. Laes, A. Spahn, and
[49] H. Meyer, “Teachers thoughts on student decision making during D. A. Martin, “Engineering students as co-creators in an ethics of
engineering design lessons,” Educ. Sci., vol. 8, no. 1, p. 9, 2018. technology course,” Sci. Eng. Ethics, vol. 27, no. 4, p. 48, 2021.
[50] P. Ponce, E. Mendez, and A. Molina, “Teaching fuzzy controllers [53] D. Carmona-Fernández et al., “Comprehensive educational model based
through a V-model based methodology,” Comput. Elect. Eng., vol. 94, on Challenge-Based Learning for the improvement of competency
Sep. 2021, Art. no. 107267. performance,” Multidiscip. J. Educ., Soc. Technol. Sci., pp. 51–66, 2023.