A Challenge Based Learning Example: How I Transformed My Course With CBL

This past year, I made the decision to revise a course that I've taught for multiple semesters through the lens of Challenge Based Learning. The results were awesome, so I wanted to share the experience here. (If you've been on the fence about giving CBL a try, I hope that my story inspires you to give it a go!) 

I have studied inquiry based pedagogy similar to Challenge Based Learning as part of my doctoral research, so CBL had already piqued my interest prior to attending the ADE Institute – but having conversations about CBL at institute inspired me to take a closer look at the particulars of the CBL framework. I also found the step-by-step processes described as part of each phase (Engage, Investigate, and Act) to be incredibly helpful in making the Challenge Based Learning process much more concrete.

So immediately after Institute, I was able to work on infusing Challenge Based Learning into the professional learning programming that my colleagues and I would be engaging with in August. In these sessions, which focused on innovative strategies for enhancing student engagement, we were able to dig into the CBL framework, engage with it ourselves (i.e. we walked through the steps of the “engage” and “investigate” phases), and projected use-cases for CBL within our existing classes and curricula. 

Additionally, I was able to revise my assignments for an upper-level undergraduate writing course that I’m teaching this semester (a collaborative writing course that centers on game design). The nature of the course really lent itself to CBL because (1) students are required to work collaboratively in game design teams, and (2) the coursework already requires students to engage in an iterative game design process. 

The first major shift was asking students to participate in brainstorming activities, as detailed in the CBL “Engage” phase, which led them down the rabbit hole of ideas until they finally landed on an authentic game design challenge.

They began by brainstorming big ideas relevant to their lives (on campus, in college, in their respective communities). Then, they turned those big ideas into essential questions. And finally, they turned those essential questions into game design challenges, i.e. “Design a game that ____.”

Here is an example of what they came up with:

• Big Idea: Building Genuine Connections
• Essential Questions: How can we foster genuine connections in an age dominated by fleeting digital connections? What barriers prevent people from forming deep, meaningful relationships in modern society? How has the definition of “friendship” evolved in the digital era? 
• Game Design Challenge: Design an AR game that integrates digital objectives with real-life interactions, pushing players to evaluate and balance digital engagement with physical world awareness.

And, here's another:

• Big Idea: Diversity and Inclusion On Campus
• Essential Questions: How can institutions, communities, and individuals better promote and practice inclusivity? What are the underlying causes of prejudice and discrimination in today’s society, and how can they be addressed? 
• Game Design Challenge: Design a game where players experience life from multiple perspectives, confronting biases and prejudices, and finding ways to challenge and change them. 

This shift promoted an authentic, challenge-based approach to the game that each group would soon be tasked with designing. You can tell by the examples of the game design challenges they came up with (above)!

Previously, students were assigned an open-ended research project, where they had the freedom to conduct academic research (essentially a literature review of scholarly sources) on any topic connected to game design, and connected to the work they would be doing in their teams. So with the “Investigate” phase of CBL in mind, we revised these parameters. 

First, teams developed guiding questions pertinent to their game design challenges. (Again, there was an immediate connection to an authentic game design challenge.) Then, teams used those guiding questions to develop guiding activities – which were authentic activities they could participate in to better take on their game design challenge. One of their non-negotiable guiding activities was the process of conducting scholarly research, but in addition to that, their activities included conducting interviews, listening to podcasts, reading books, reviewing game designers’ blogs, administering surveys, playtesting relevant games, and more.

The annotated bibliography that students were previously required to compose was, then, transformed into something much more suited to tackling their game design challenge. They were required to find and annotate a number of scholarly sources, as well as a minimum of two guiding activities each. Then, they synthesized each source as part of how the connective annotated bibliography was formatted. The result was a synthesis of academic and peer reviewed research articles with current and authentic artifacts or voices from the field (e.g. professional game designers’ perspectives and discussions on game design). 

Previously, the course culminated with the submission of a completed game design document, as well as a playable prototype that is the result of an iterative design process. But in line with CBL, this was revised to include a more authentic culminating experience: to implement the game with its intended audience, evaluate its effectiveness, reflect on what could be done differently, and refine the game accordingly.

One way this shift was implemented is through the “playtesting” phase. Previously, playtesting was incorporated into our coursework, similar to how “peer reviews” might be incorporated into a writing class. (Students were simply asked to play each others’ games, complete their playtesting protocols, provide feedback, and so on.) The limitations were similar to typical in-class peer review practices: the game players weren’t necessarily the game’s intended audience, and their feedback, while well-intended, would often misconstrue what the game’s intended audience might truly think and feel. So during playtesting, teams were required to bring their prototypes to their intended audiences, and collected feedback accordingly.

At the end of the semester, teams were, again, encouraged to implement their games in the real-world settings that they were targeting – but this proved to be problematic given the scope of some of their challenges, and the time remaining in the course. This is something that I think could be better approached (next semester) if teams can target an authentic audience at the onset of the game design process (e.g. the club, organization, group, event, or place where their final game can actually “launch” in the final week of the course).

Overall, integrating challenge based learning into my coursework was very beneficial, and I’m looking forward to refining the process next semester. (In a sense, this is MY “challenge”...!) The typical projects gained new life when students had a chance to develop a deeper and more authentic connection to the challenges they were solving.

It's interesting to think that the assignments and projects that I revised were already very open-ended in nature -- perhaps to a fault. While student choice is incredibly important, too much choice can yield other issues. The "constraints" offered by the CBL helped to push students into a more thoughtful place, while the inquiry and critical thinking skills that were required to tackle their challenges fueled the entire process in a rigorous, engaging, and rewarding way.

If you've recently revamped a lesson (or are thinking about revamping a lesson) with Challenge Based Learning, tell us about it in the comments!!