Employing Technology Industry Methods to Facilitate Transformative Learning Experiences in the Classroom: Insights From a Pilot

Abstract

High-impact, transformative educational practices change the way students see themselves and others, as well as impart knowledge. Practices from the technology industry may offer innovative strategies for fostering transformational learning experiences. We developed and implemented two innovation techniques—Hackathon and Innovation Time Off (ITO)—in a graduate course on social psychology and public health nutrition. The Hackathon occurred in the sixth and seventh weeks of the course; the last 4 weeks provided 10% of class time for ITO projects. All enrolled students participated in the pilot study (n = 6; M age = 27.5 years; 83% female; 67% White) and completed reflection papers during the final exam period. Student learning was assessed from these reflection papers using a rubric for transformative versus nontransformative changes in five areas: confidence, pride, skills, perspective, and identity. Student responses revealed transformative changes in perspective (n = 7). Additionally, nontransformative changes were found in confidence (n = 1), identity (n = 2), perspective (n = 4), and skills (n = 9). This pilot work suggests that the Hackathon and ITO contributed to perceived skill-building in problem-solving and teamwork, and the Hackathon may have led to transformative changes in perspective; ITO may not be appropriate for learners who need structure; high confidence remained unchanged; and these strategies are likely to be feasible and replicable.

Keywords

public health education transformative learning

Transformational learning has been defined as learning that “changes the way people see themselves and their world” (Baumgartner, 2002 p. 16). High-impact, transformative educational practices are those that spark self-reflection, broaden frames of reference, soften rigid assumptions, and connect with students from diverse backgrounds (Dirkx et al., 2006; Kuh, 2008; Mezirow, 2003). Transformative teaching approaches can promote student retention of material, active engagement, and greater persistence (Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012). Specific strategies for transformative learning include problem-based or collaborative learning (e.g., team-based learning), flipped classrooms, structured self-reflection, cultural experiences, and activities requiring evaluation of personal assumptions (Enkhtur & Yamamoto, 2017; Kasworm & Bowles, 2012; Loyens et al., 2015; Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012). These are thought to enhance transformative learning by providing opportunities to practice collaborative critical thinking and communication skills, problem solving, and self-awareness development (Roberts et al., 2018; Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012; White & Nitkin, 2014). Many of the strategies studied have emerged from contemporary educational settings—K–12, higher education, and adult learning. However, little research has examined the efficacy of strategies developed outside of these fields. In particular, the field of technology, which demands a focus on innovation and collaborative problem solving, may offer new strategies for generating transformative learning.

Two specific innovation practices used in the technology field that may be well-suited to adaptation for the classroom are (a) Hackathons and (b) Innovation Time Off (ITO; Pope-Ruark, 2016). Hackathons can be defined as groups of people coming together for creative problem solving during a short period of time (MIT Hacking Medicine, 2016; Tauberer, 2014). While hackathons originated around computer programming problems, they have expanded to university settings for use addressing a range of topics. For example, Brown Hack Health 2019 brought together physicians, engineers, artists, and others around the theme of mental health (Wang, 2019). The winning solutions included a blanket-like covering for elderly patients that could address side-effects of dementia and using technology (e.g., Alexa or social sites) to ease symptoms of depression or other mental illness (Wang, 2019). ITO is time at work that is “free” for pursuing projects of personal interest. Google began this practice in 2004, allowing employees 20% of their time to work on projects of their choosing that they thought would benefit the organization (Page & Brin, 2004). It is credited with innovations such as Gmail (Lovejoy, 2013). Hackathons and ITO have been proposed as potential sources of high-impact learning in higher-education because they create opportunities for focused, immersive engagement; self-directed learning; and play (Pope-Ruark, 2016). To the authors’ knowledge, no evidence is available to date about whether these approaches lead to transformative learning in the college or graduate classroom, though interest in exploring these strategies is growing (e.g., Pollock & Avi Brooks, 2017). Studies are needed to develop and adapt these methods for the classroom setting.

This pilot incorporated these two innovation techniques into a higher education classroom. The overarching aim was to begin to explore the use of hackathons and ITO for fostering skill development and transformative learning experiences. Thus, this article focuses on the course components most relevant to those activities.

Design and Implementation of the Hackathon and Innovation Time Off

The framework for the course, called Applying Social Psychological Principles and Technology Innovation Methods to Address Public Health Nutrition Problems, was social psychology as applied to public health issues. The main learning objective relevant to the Hackathon and ITO project was the following: generate insights about public health problems, including clarifying the scope of a problem and proposing a novel solution.

The course was developed and taught at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, which is located in Boston, MA, and offers master’s and doctoral programs in the social and biological sciences. It was offered in the spring semester of 2018 and enrolled six master’s students who all completed the course. Their mean age was 27.5 years (range 24–31 years), one was male and five were female, and two were Asian and four were White. Within the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, five of the students were enrolled in master’s programs in Nutrition Interventions, Communication, and Behavior Change and one was enrolled in Biochemical and Molecular Nutrition. Students self-enrolled based on interest and schedule availability. The course met for 3 hours weekly for 13 weeks. Students were told about the study on the first day of the course, and it was emphasized that their decision to participate was voluntary and would not affect their grade or any requirements of the course. All enrolled students provided consent to participate. All methods were approved by the Social, Behavioral and Educational Research Institutional Review Board at Tufts University.

The first 5 weeks of the course were focused on content from social psychology. Implementation of the innovation strategies began on the sixth week. This class was designed to teach students about problem-solving strategies and how to apply them. Students were taught three problem-solving processes: Design Sprint (i.e., Map the problem, Sketch multiple solutions, Decide one to move forward, Prototype creation, and Test with a real audience; Knapp et al., 2016), Design Thinking (Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test; Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University, 2017), and WRAP (Widen your options, Reality test your assumptions, Attain distance, and Prepare to be wrong; Heath & Heath, 2013). As there was overlap among these processes, students were also taught how to integrate them (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Timeline and Integration of Design Spring, Design Thinking, and WRAP Processes With Community Engagement.

	Class 1		Intervening week						Class 2
	Thursday		Friday	Saturday	Sunday	Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday
Problem-solving frameworks
WRAP			Widen your options	Reality test your assumptions	Attain Distance before deciding				Prepare to be wrong
Design sprint		Map	Sketch			Decide	Prototype	Test
Design thinking	Empathize	Define	Ideate				Prototype	Test
Community engagement
Communication with priority audience member	X							X

The next two classes encompassed the Hackathon. As described in the syllabus (see Table 2), students were assigned to small teams. As a kick-off, guest speakers from a community public health organization posed a problem to the class. Students were expected to work on the problem for the intervening week. In the second Hackathon class period, teams gave a short report of their solution to the group.

Table 2.

Syllabus Descriptions of Hackathon and Innovation Time Off (ITO) projects.

Hackathon

Students will be assigned to small teams for the hackathon event. The kick-off of the Hackathon will be a short presentation by a guest speaker, a representative from a community public health organization confronting a real-world public health nutrition problem. Teams will be tasked with solving this problem. The rest of the class period will be devoted intensive problem-solving work. During the week between the two class periods, teams may choose to meet or continue working on the project. The next class period will also be devoted to an intensive problem-solving session. Integrating course content with previous knowledge, students will move through at least the first three of five steps in the Design Sprint process (Understand the problem, Devise multiple solutions, Select one to move forward, Create a prototype, and Test with a real audience). At the end of the second class period, teams will give a short report of their solution to the group and summarize how they completed each step of the decision-making process (i.e., widening the options, reality testing assumptions, attaining distance from the situation, and preparing for the event of a failure; Heath & Heath, 2013). A formal presentation is not needed; a verbal report is fine. Peers, instructors, and the representative from a community public health organization will be provided a rubric to evaluate how closely the team followed the process and how well the solution addresses the problem overall. The following day, a written report will be due, documenting the team’s process and solution. Instructors will grade the written component using a check plus/check/check minus system. Students will evaluate group members on teamwork using a rubric provided and discussed beforehand. Evaluations will be completed anonymously at the end of the first and second days of the Hackathon. Results will be compiled, and aggregated results will be shared among team members during a discussion aimed at improving team functioning. Only instructor evaluations will be used to determine the course grade.

ITO

The ITO project may be completed alone or in a self-selected group of up to three students over four class periods (and outside of class, if you choose). This will be done during the third segment of the semester. A wide range of projects could be acceptable, such as a video for children aiming to change eating behavior, a redesigned government form to affect SNAP benefit uptake, or a PowerPoint deck suggesting evidence-based techniques to address weight stigma. For the project, students will direct their own learning toward a public health nutrition problem of personal interest. On the last day of class, students will give a formal presentation of their projects (e.g., PowerPoint). Both the in-class presentation and written report will be the final deliverables. The presentation will be evaluated by course instructors, peers, and a representative from a public health organization, who will consider how closely students followed the decision-making process; at least the first three steps in the Design Process; and how well the solution addresses the problem. Students will be provided this feedback, but only instructor evaluations will be used to calculate the presentation grade. The written report will be graded by course instructors using these same criteria in addition to logical organization and clarity of writing.

In the kick-off class, staff from the Boston Public Health Commission (BPHC) presented a public health problem along with a consultant from Head Start. The issue presented to the students was the suboptimal health status and health behaviors of early childhood education teachers (e.g., Head Start teachers, daycare teachers). After the problem was presented, both Hackathon teams had 1 week to work on solutions to this issue. They were encouraged to utilize the consultant to ask questions, gain insights, and to obtain feedback on potential solutions. The consultant also helped connect students with other staff at local Head Start centers for additional insights and feedback. Boundaries were established in advance in terms of the number of emails per day and the times of day that a response could be expected; the Head Start consultant received an honorarium of $500 for her participation. Students emailed four to five periodic summary reports to the instructors and interacted with the consultant as they moved through the problem-solving steps. As an example, an initial update was as follows:

Team 1: Our first meeting focused on mapping out and defining the problem. We took into consideration key actors as well as brainstormed some end goals. So far after narrowing it down we determined that our end goal will be: To increase the efforts of childcare centers to improve health and wellness of their educators.

During the second Hackathon class, teams presented their solutions and received feedback from instructors, peers, the BPHC staff, and the Head Start consultant. Team 1 proposed an educational event designed to enlist champions and eventually spur changes to the benefits package of the early childhood educators. Team 2 proposed implementing and conducting a pilot study of a wellness program for the early childhood educators and other staff that was modeled after a current program for Boston Public Schools personnel. The day after the second Hackathon class, a rough report was due that documented the team’s process and solution. The instructors evaluated the Hackathon based on the rubric (see the appendix).

ITO was implemented during the last 4 weeks of the course. Students were allotted 20 minutes or approximately 10% of the 180-minute class time for their projects. They were referred to the syllabus description to frame their thinking (see Table 2). They were also told that they were not expected to spend time outside of class on their projects, but if they chose to do so it should be limited to 1 to 2 hours per week. On the last day of class, students gave a formal presentation of their projects and submitted a written report.

All six students chose to use their ITO time on independent projects. Although we described the ITO in class and offered an opportunity to ask questions, we found that students had some initial difficulty with the open-ended nature of the project. We clarified expectations by meeting individually with two of the students, and as a result of these meetings, sent an email with feedback applicable to the whole class and further clarified the assignment in the following class. By the second week of ITO, all students had identified a problem to address, and no further clarification about the project was needed. Student projects are described in Table 3. The same evaluation criteria were used as for the Hackathon.

Table 3.

Innovation Time Off (ITO) Projects.

Public health problem	Proposed solution
Obesity and a lack of clarity on whether it is more effective to focus on a single weight-related behavior, or to change several at once	Formal literature review to summarize the evidence (this was further developed after the course concluded and is currently under review for publication)
High rate of nutrition-related diseases in India and lack of access to trained nutrition professionals	Tele-nutrition: based on telemedicine, tele-nutrition is the delivery of health education, individualized coaching, and self-management techniques via internet connected devices like smartphones
Poor diet quality among adults, with three main barriers: lack of access to healthful foods, cost, and lack of time to prepare foods	Grocery “food trucks”: trucks that set up mobile stands in strategic locations in underserved neighborhoods to extend the reach of the grocery store
Insufficient time for school lunches, resulting in food waste and suboptimal student nutrition	Explored multiple solutions; final recommendation is that change would be most effective with a combination of three:1. Change federal regulations based on research on adequate lunch length2. Add five silent minutes to lunch period3. Recess before lunch
Insufficient physical activity levels and post-college loneliness	Fitness Coop: A group of women from various backgrounds, cultures, and experiences who meet each week to engage in physical activity together; for admission to the group, they would pay and/or offer services, such as teaching a class, marketing, or offering space
Poor diet quality among college students	UnderGrad Gourmet: Instagram campaign designed to address and reduce negative behavioral norms around healthful meal selection in the student dining hall, increase college freshman self-efficacy around planning for dorm-based meals, and to help students choose healthful food options off-campus

Implementation of both the Hackathon and ITO proceeded in accordance with a priori plans, as indicated in the syllabus. There were no substantial deviations to the procedures or timeline. The only minor alteration was the need to further clarify the ITO as described.

Assessment of Transformative Learning

Student learning experiences were evaluated using the rubric from Springfield et al. (2015) as applied to reflection papers that students completed during the final exam period. In the Springfield rubric, nontransformative changes are defined as being quantitative, that is, changes in extent or amount, while transformative changes are defined as being qualitative, that is, students are in some way fundamentally different than they were before: “The student recognizes that change occurred AND the change has substantially altered them in some way”; “I used to . . . but now I . . .” (Springfield et al., 2015, p. 74). The rubric also defines five types of changes, each of which may be transformative or nontransformative. These are confidence, or belief in one’s ability to use a skill; pride in accomplishment; skills, which could include any type of skill learned in the course; perspective, or how a student understands or perceives other people or situations; and identity, or how they understand or see themselves. In the reflection papers, students received the following prompts, which were adapted from Springfield et al. (2015):

Consider your experience in this course this semester. Please describe it in one to two paragraphs.

After you’ve done that, use the questions below as a guide to write more about aspects of your experience. The questions are a guide but are not an exhaustive list. If different issues spring to mind, please feel free to describe those as well.

Did you have any a-ha moments this semester?

What does it mean to work toward improvements in public health nutrition? Have your views have changed compared to the start of the semester? If so, how?

What does it mean to be a productive member of a team? Have your views changed compared to the start of the semester? If so, how?

What do you see as the role of reflection or self-reflection in your profession moving ahead?

Did you learn anything that surprised you?

A priori, based on the goals of the course, we expected changes in confidence, skills, and perspective. We did not necessarily expect changes in identity in adult learners within the timeframe. The course was not specifically designed to increase pride in accomplishment, which typically results from praise feedback. To code the reflections, a research assistant (TF) created a data shell in Microsoft Excel with all student responses. The two instructors (ES and SF) and the research assistant independently coded the type of change (i.e., confidence, pride, skills, perspective, identity) and whether it was transformative or nontransformative, and entered any comments. At the completion of coding, all three met to resolve any discrepancies through discussion and to determine a consensus code.

Reflection papers revealed few student-reported instances of changes in confidence (n = 1) and identity (n = 2; Figure 1). As expected, no changes in pride were found. Students described nontransformative changes in skills (n = 9), mainly in problem solving and working effectively in a team.

Figure 1.

Frequency of student-reported changes in confidence, pride, skills, perspective, and identity by transformation status.

I really liked learning about problem-solving. I think that is one of the biggest things I learned from this class; how to go about solving a problem in a structured and productive process. (Student reflection paper)

There were 11 changes in perspective, and seven of these were transformative. Transformative change occurred for five of the six students, with two students describing two instances. Students attributed changes in perspective to both the Hackathon and other course activities.

I think I have a new appreciation for just how many facets there are when thinking about behavior change, public health nutrition, and improvements in our systems. The Hackathon was the best experience that highlighted just how many levels you would need to go through to influence healthy behavior. (Student reflection paper)

Lessons Learned

This was a pilot study and findings rest on data from a small class of six highly motivated graduate students. Lessons learned are meant to provide additional insight on this limited experience and to suggest hypotheses for future work.

The Hackathon and ITO contributed to perceived skill-building. In their reflection papers, students attributed an increase in problem-solving skills to both activities and an increase in teamwork skills to the Hackathon. Both skills are important in public health and many other disciplines, and on that basis, these strategies are worthy of further consideration for incorporation into the classroom.

The Hackathon contributed to transformative changes in perspective. Students attributed transformative changes in perspective to the Hackathon, but not to ITO. There are several possible reasons for this. In the Hackathon, community engagement and cultural inclusion were emphasized, compared with the ITO which allowed students to pursue an idea within their own interests. Also, working in a Hackathon team may have forced students to self-reflect when their suggestions were questioned by others, which would not occur with the ITO project. Furthermore, there is some literature that links team-based learning among nurses and midwives with higher engagement and development of the skills required for transformational learning (Dearnley et al., 2018). Intensive group work has also been used in the health sciences and social work to spur students to engage with one another while grappling with how the problems in their field interact with society (Green, 2019; Roberts et al., 2018). This suggests that teamwork combined with problem-solving as in the Hackathon may be an important route for bringing about transformative learning experiences, and this could be further explored in larger studies.

ITO may not be appropriate for all learners. The Hackathon had more structure and the nature of the assignment seemed clear from the start. The purpose of the ITO was less apparent, and our students felt some initial discomfort with the open-ended nature of it, even after having learned and applied the problem-solving strategies for the Hackathon. They were more comfortable after we provided additional guidance. This suggests that ITO may not be effective for students who require a high level of structure.

There was little change in confidence. Our second-year master’s students likely had a high level of confidence on entering the course. The impact of the Hackathon and ITO on change in confidence should continue to be explored, both pre–post (rather than retrospectively) and with other student populations.

These strategies are likely to be feasible and replicable. Factors that would likely affect the ease of implementing Hackathons and ITO projects in other courses include availability of funding, stakeholder gains, and time (upfront preparation and in-class). Although the consultant was paid, she initially agreed to participate without pay. Consultants may also be willing to participate for a smaller stipend that could potentially be covered by departmental funds. Our BPHC partners and the consultant all found the experience worthwhile and enjoyed it. As instructors, we had limited personal experiences with Hackathon procedures and no experience with ITO, and were able to construct a process based on publicly available resources (Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University, 2017; Heath & Heath, 2013; Knapp, 2017; Knapp et al., 2016; MIT Hacking Medicine, 2016; Tauberer, 2014). Overall, the Hackathon did not require excessive preparation compared to other teaching activities. Planning for the Hackathon involved setting aside the course time for the practice session, kick-off and wrap-up; creating the Process map (Table 1); and coordinating with public health professionals to present a problem and with a target audience member to provide feedback. The ITO required only setting aside in-class course time and responding to questions. Another feasibility consideration is the ability to preserve and prioritize the ITO. This was challenging and took extra planning for the other elements of the course and careful attention to time during class. We did not feel that ITO had a detrimental impact on instructional time.

Conclusion

This is the first published evaluation of a Hackathon and ITO in the education context. Results indicate feasibility and suggest the promise of these approaches, particularly the Hackathon, for perceived skill-building and transformative changes in perspective. Future research is needed to further refine these strategies, better understand underlying mechanisms, and fully evaluate their potential.

Footnotes

Appendix

Grading Rubric for Hackathon From Syllabus.

Components	Expected level of competence (“check-plus”)	Moving toward expected level of competence (“check”)	Below expected level of competence (“check-minus”)
Timely submission of assignment	Report is submitted on time.	Report is submitted late.	Report is submitted very late (one day or more after due).
Style guidelines	Writing is clear and succinct. Demonstrates care in writing, which may be informal, but thoughtful. The memo has a smooth flow of ideas and is well organized and logical.	Writing lacks clarity in some places. Flow of ideas could use some improvement.	Writing lacks clarity throughout. Flow of ideas is rough. Memo is not well organized.
Demonstrates inquiry into problem and effort toward devising a solution	Demonstrates clear implementation of the design process and serious contemplation of the best solution, synthesized from the process. Shows original thought.	Demonstrates that the design process was followed and the proposed solution shows some integration of the process.	Design process was cursorily included, but report gives little indication that it was followed very carefully or that the proposed solution aligns with the results of the process.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the students who participated in this experimental course; Alison Brown for her work to create the case studies; Mark Kennedy and Sonia Carter of the Boston Public Health Commission and Kelley Bennett from Head Start–Mattapan.

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 funded by a Tufts Innovates grant from Office of the Provost at Tufts University, awarded to authors Sara Folta and Eleanor Shonkoff.

ORCID iD

Sara C. Folta

References

Baumgartner

(2002). An update on transformational learning. New Directions for Adults and Continuing Education, 2001(89), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.4

Dearnley

Rhodes

Roberts

Williams

Prenton

(2018, January). Team based learning in nursing and midwifery higher education; a systematic review of the evidence for change. Nurse Education Today, 60, 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.09.012

Dirkx

Mezirow

Cranton

(2006). Musings and reflections on the meaning, context, and process of transformative learning: A dialogue between John M. Dirkx and Jack Mezirow. Journal of Transformative Education, 4(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344606287503

Enkhtur

Yamamoto

(2017). Transformative learning theory and its application in higher education settings: A review paper. 大阪大学大学院人間科学研究科紀要 [Bulletin of Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University], 43, 193–214. https://doi.org/10.18910/60584

Green

W. M.

(2019). Moving toward a third generation of medical education: Integrating transformational learning principles in health professions education. In Wang

V. X.

(Ed.), Handbook of research on transdisciplinary knowledge generation (pp. 88–101). IGI Global.

Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University. (2017). An introduction to design thinking process guide. https://dschool-old.stanford.edu/sandbox/groups/designresources/wiki/36873/attachments/74b3d/ModeGuideBOOTCAMP2010L.pdf

Heath

(2013). Decisive: How to make better choices in life and work. Currency.

Kasworm

Bowles

(2012). Fostering transformative learning in higher education settings. In Taylor

Cranton

(Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 388–407). Jossey-Bass.

Knapp

(2017). Sprint. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ivb5R-44ww

10.

Knapp

Zeratsky

Kowitz

(2016). Sprint: How to solve big problems and test new ideas in just five days. Simon & Schuster.

11.

Kuh

(2008). High impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. https://provost.tufts.edu/celt/files/High-Impact-Ed-Practices1.pdf

12.

Lovejoy

(2013). Google’s 20 Percent Time—birthplace of Gmail, Google maps & Adsense—effectively dead. https://9to5google.com/2013/08/16/googles-20-percent-time-birthplace-of-gmail-google-maps-adsense-now-effectively-dead/

13.

Loyens

S. M. M.

Jones

S. H.

Mikkers

van Gog

(2015, August). Problem-based learning as a facilitator of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 38, 34–42.

14.

Mezirow

(2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.03.002

15.

MIT Hacking Medicine. (2016). Health hackathon handbook. http://hackingmedicine.mit.edu/assets/Health_Hackathon_Handbook.pdf

16.

Page

Brin

(2004). “An owner’s manual” for Google’s shareholders. https://abc.xyz/investor/founders-letters/2004-ipo-letter/

17.

Pollock

Avi Brooks

(2017). Collaborative research into game jams, hackathons, and event-based teaching in higher education. Paper presented at the 2017 Association for Computing Machinery’s Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Seattle, WA.

18.

Pope-Ruark

(2016, October 28). 3 easy ways to embrace high-impact learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/3-Easy-Ways-to-Embrace/238111?cid=cp238157.

19.

Roberts

A. R.

Sellers

S. L.

Franks

Nelson

T. S.

(2018). Teaching note—Social work week: Harnessing the potential of group practice to achieve transformational learning. Journal of Social Work Education, 54(3), 561–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2018.1434431

20.

Slavich

G. M.

Zimbardo

P. G.

(2012). Transformational teaching: Theoretical underpinnings, basic principles, and core methods. Educational Psychology Review, 24(4), 569–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9199-6

21.

Springfield

Gwozdek

Smiler

(2015). Transformational rubric for engaged learning: A told and method for measuring life-changing experiences. International Journal of ePortfolio, 5(1), 63–74.

22.

Tauberer

(2014). How to run a successful hackathon. Retrieved from https://hackathon.guide/

23.

Wang

(2019). Hack health event spotlights mental health, fosters student innovation. https://www.browndailyherald.com/2019/09/16/hack-health-event-spotlights-mental-health-fosters-student-innovation/

24.

White

S. K.

Nitkin

M. R.

(2014). Creating a transformational learning experience: Immersing students in an intensive interdisciplinary learning environment. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2014.080203