Characterizing a gamified hackathon as a higher education learning environment.

Characterizing a gamified hackathon as a higher education learning environment. | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Characterizing a gamified hackathon as a higher education learning environment. Carolina García-Vázquez, Rafael Conde Melguizo This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9713456/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigates a gamified hackathon as a learning environment in higher education at a Spanish university. The intervention engaged 213 students from design- and technology-related degree programs, who collaborated in teams of up to five to design and develop an adaptive 404 error page situated within a science-fiction narrative. Employing a descriptive cross-sectional design, the study collected post-activity questionnaire responses from 91 students. The instrument comprised 12 Likert-type items and three open-ended questions, aiming to capture students’ perceptions of the motivational and environmental dimensions of the experience. The findings suggest that the hackathon functioned as a positive learning environment. Students reported strong perceptions of autonomy, creative challenge, practical application of knowledge, and teamwork, whereas competition and reward were valued to a lesser extent. Qualitative themes reinforced these results by highlighting creativity within a playful narrative and collaboration under time constraints. Furthermore, workload balance, clarity of expectations, and fairness emerged as key factors influencing the perceived legitimacy of the activity. Preliminary internal-consistency estimates supported the descriptive use of most questionnaire dimensions; however, the instrument should be considered provisional rather than fully validated. This study contributes to active learning methodologies and learning environments research by characterizing hackathons as multidimensional educational settings whose value depends on intentional design. Educational Psychology Gamification active learning methodologies hackathons learning environments higher education self-determination theory. Figures Figure 1 Introduction Higher education is increasingly challenged to create learning environments that do more than transmit disciplinary knowledge. In fields related to design and technology, students are also expected to develop collaboration, problem-solving, creativity, and the capacity to produce meaningful artifacts under realistic constraints. From an active learning methodologies and environments perspective, these outcomes are not shaped only by instructional methods, but by the broader configuration of conditions under which learning takes place, including the organizational, social, temporal, pedagogical, and material features of the educational setting (Fraser, 1998 ; Moos, 1979 ). Within this broader pedagogical landscape, hackathons have attracted growing interest in education. Originally associated with the technology sector, hackathons have increasingly been adopted in schools and universities as intensive formats that combine teamwork, time-bound problem solving, iterative design, and the production of a tangible outcome (Garcia, 2023 ; Schulten & Chounta, 2024 ). Recent reviews suggest educational hackathons can support technical learning, collaboration, creativity, and the development of transferable skills, while also creating conditions of time pressure, high task intensity, and uneven participation that require careful pedagogical orchestration (Oyetade et al., 2024 ). Studies conducted in higher delivery and further shown that hackathons can be adapted to different organizational formats, including online and hybrid delivery, and can serve as meaningful sites of participation and innovation when intentionally designed for educational purposes rather than treated merely as extracurricular events (Hershkovitz & Lahav, 2024 ). This shift is especially relevant in design- and technology-related degree programs, where learning is often organized around artifact production, applied decision-making, and the integration of technical and aesthetic criteria. Hackathon formats align well with these disciplinary logics because they combine authentic production, bounded challenge, collaborative work, and public evaluation within a compressed period. However, the literature remains fragmented, and fewer studies examine hackathons as learning environments in the fuller sense used in learning environments research. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) provides a convenient framework for examining this convergence. SDT proposes that higher-quality motivation is more likely when the learning environment supports the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000 ). This perspective is particularly relevant to hackathon-based pedagogy because such environments can simultaneously enable and constrain these needs. Open-ended design decisions, opportunities for experimentation, and student ownership may support autonomy; the practical resolution of a technically demanding challenge may strengthen competence; and intensive teamwork may enhance relatedness. At the same time, strong time pressure, public comparison, competitive reward structures, and unclear expectations may undermine these same needs if the environment is perceived as unfair, confusing, or overly controlling. SDT-informed reading is therefore useful not because it assumes hackathons are motivating, but because it helps analyze which environmental features are likely to support or hinder meaningful engagement. Against this background, the present study examines a gamified hackathon implemented at a Spanish university as a higher education learning environment. The intervention involved 213 students enrolled in design and technology degree programs. Working in teams up to five, students were asked to design and develop an adaptive 404 error page within a science-fiction narrative in which Major Tom had lost Mars from the Solar System. The activity combined a bounded technical brief, collaborative production, creative freedom, a narrative frame, and a prize for the best team submission. Following the hackathon, a post-activity questionnaire comprising Likert-type and open-ended items was completed by 91 students. The study had three aims: to describe the hackathon as a higher education learning environment; to examine students’ perceptions of motivation and learning within that environment; and to report initial internal-consistency evidence for an ad hoc questionnaire designed for this context. Accordingly, the study asked how the hackathon could be characterized as a learning environment, how students perceived motivation and learning within it, and what preliminary evidence supported the questionnaire’s use. Theoretical Framework Hackathons as higher education learning environments From a learning environments perspective based on active learning paradigm, educational activities are shaped not only by instructional methods but also by the organizational, pedagogical, social, and material conditions through which learning occurs (Fraser, 1998 ; Moos, 1979 ). This perspective is particularly useful for intensive formats such as hackathons, where time, task structure, collaboration, evaluation, and access to resources jointly shape participation and perceived learning. Hackathons can plausibly be treated as higher education learning environments because they assemble, in a bounded and recognizable format, a set of educationally meaningful conditions. They typically involve a clearly delimited timeframe, teamwork, a shared challenge, access to digital tools and resources, iterative production, and the expectation of a tangible outcome that can be presented and assessed. Educational research has increasingly documented the diffusion of hackathons beyond their original technological and innovation-oriented settings into formal learning contexts, where they have been used to promote applied problem-solving, creativity, collaboration, and engagement (Garcia, 2023 ; Schulten & Chounta, 2024 ). In disciplinary terms, hackathons are also adjacent to active pedagogies such as project-based learning (PBL) and challenge-based learning (CBL). Like PBL, they organize learning around the production of a meaningful artifact and the integration of knowledge through doing (Almulla, 2020 ). Like CBL, they place students before an open or semi-open challenge that requires decision-making, collaboration, and responses to realistic constraints (Gallagher & Savage, 2023 ; van den Beemt et al., 2023 ). However, hackathons also add a distinctive combination of temporal compression, public culmination, and intensified collaboration that make them analytically different from longer project formats. Recent literature suggests that hackathons can foster technical learning, teamwork, creativity, and authenticity, while also generating tensions related to time pressure, uneven participation, cognitive overload, and uncertainty about evaluation (Araujo et al., 2025 ; Garcia, 2023 ; Oyetade et al., 2024 ; Sotaquirá-Gutiérrez et al., 2025 ). Their educational value, therefore, depends less on the format itself than on how the event is designed, scaffolded, and interpreted by participants. This point becomes even more relevant when hackathons are deliberately gamified. In higher education, gamification is increasingly understood not merely as the addition of superficial rewards, but as a form of pedagogical and motivational design capable of shaping how students interpret a task, how they position themselves within it, and how they experience challenge, immersion, and recognition (Alonso-Sánchez et al., 2025 ). In a gamified hackathon, elements such as narrative framing, inter-team comparisons, symbolic rewards, time-bounded progression, and public recognition are not mere ornaments; they become part of the learning environment itself. They alter the meaning of the task, define expectations of performance, influence the emotional tone of participation, and contribute to the perceived legitimacy of the experience. Self-Determination Theory and Motivational Design in Gamified Intensive Settings To interpret those conditions, Self-Determination Theory (SDT) provides a useful and parsimonious lens. SDT argues that the quality of motivation depends in large part on whether the social context supports the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000 ). In educational settings, this perspective has been widely used to explain why some learning environments foster engagement, persistence, and perceived value more effectively than others. Its relevance here lies in its contextual sensitivity: motivation is not treated as a fixed trait of the learner, but as something shaped by how the environment is organized and experienced. For a study situated in the tradition of learning environments research, SDT is therefore useful because it helps articulate how particular environmental characteristics may support or frustrate students’ motivational functioning. Applied to hackathon-based pedagogy, SDT helps explain why intensive collaborative settings can be experienced as either energizing or controlling. Autonomy may be supported when students can make meaningful decisions about design, problem-solving strategies, and the final product's form. Competence may be supported when the challenge is sufficiently demanding to be worthwhile, yet sufficiently structured to allow students to experience mastery through the practical application of knowledge. Relatedness may be supported through cooperation, shared purpose, peer exchange, and the sense of belonging that often emerges in concentrated team-based work. Importantly, none of these outcomes is automatic. Open-ended tasks do not necessarily foster autonomy if expectations are unclear; demanding challenges do not necessarily foster competence if students feel overwhelmed; and teamwork does not necessarily foster relatedness if coordination is poor or participation is uneven. This is one reason why intensive formats such as hackathons deserve careful environmental analysis rather than categorical pedagogical endorsement. Game-informed elements can support or undermine autonomy, competence, and relatedness depending on how they are implemented. Narrative may enhance meaning and immersion, rewards may function as recognition, and competition may focus effort, but these same elements can also be perceived as controlling or unfair. The questionnaire was therefore designed to capture not only satisfaction but also key motivational and environmental dimensions of the experience, drawing on SDT and prior work in academic motivation and learning environment measurement (Fraser, 1998 ; Parpala et al., 2013 ; Vallerand et al., 1992 ; Walker & Fraser, 2005 ). Method Research Design This study adopted a descriptive cross-sectional design based on a post-activity questionnaire administered after a gamified hackathon in higher education (Alvira Martín, 2011 ). The aim was not to test causal effects or compare conditions, but to document how students perceived a bounded educational experience and to describe the hackathon as a learning environment. The design combined quantitative and qualitative data. Likert-type items captured students’ perceptions of key motivational and environmental dimensions. At the same time, open-ended questions allowed participants to elaborate on motivating aspects of the experience, perceived learning, and suggested improvements. Context, Settings, and Participants The study was conducted at a Spanish higher education institution offering degree programs in design and technology, during a parallel event held in November 2025 as part of the regional Science and Innovation Week. The hackathon was integrated into subjects related to web design and development and took place within the formal academic setting rather than as an extracurricular activity. In this sense, the experience combined institutional curricular embedding with an event-based intensive format. The accessible population consisted of 213 students enrolled in five official degree programs: Multimedia and Graphic Design (Degree and Bachelor's), Audiovisual Design and Illustration (Degree), Full-Stack Development (Degree), and Design and Development of Video Games and Virtual Environments (Degree). Participation in the hackathon formed part of the academic activity, whereas participation in the questionnaire study was voluntary, anonymous, and had no academic consequences. No exclusion criteria were established, as all students participating in the hackathon were eligible to respond to the post-activity questionnaire. A total of 91 students completed the questionnaire after the hackathon, representing 42.7% of the participating population. The analytic sample was therefore a voluntary convenience sample composed of students who agreed to participate during the data collection period. In addition to the perception items, the questionnaire collected contextual variables to characterize the sample, namely degree program, academic year, and prior participation in hackathons of a similar nature. These variables were included to support a more precise descriptive reading of the results and to situate students’ responses within the diversity of the participating cohort. Hackathon Design and Learning Environment The educational intervention consisted of a one-week gamified hackathon focused on creating an adaptive 404 error webpage. Students worked in teams of up to five members and were asked to design and develop a web-based solution for a fictional scenario in which Major Tom had lost Mars from the Solar System. The product to be developed was therefore technically bound but creatively open: all teams addressed the same general challenge while retaining considerable freedom in visual design, interaction, animations, and narrative interpretation. The use of HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, and visual effects formed part of the expected technical basis of the task. The hackathon was designed to simulate a condensed professional sprint. Participants worked over a limited period of one week, using Visual Studio Code as the principal development environment, with access to standard extensions that facilitated preview and iteration. From the perspective adopted in this study, these design features constituted the core of the learning environment under examination. First, the temporal dimension was defined by bounded duration and deadline pressure. Second, the pedagogical dimension was shaped by an assessable technical-creative challenge with a shared brief and open-ended solution paths. Third, the social dimension was structured through small-group collaboration, intra-team coordination, and inter-team comparison. Fourth, the material and digital dimension included access to development tools, screen-based production, and the technical requirements of responsive web design. Fifth, the evaluative dimension was defined by the public recognition of the best submission and by explicit attention to creativity and technical execution. To make this environmental and motivational design explicit, the main gamified features of the hackathon were identified in terms of their concrete operationalization within the activity, their function within the learning environment, and their expected motivational relevance. As shown in Table 1 , the experience combined narrative framing, competition, reward, teamwork, creative freedom, and final recognition as interrelated design elements rather than as isolated techniques. Table 1 Gamified design elements of the hackathon and their function within the learning environment Gamification element Operationalization in the hackathon Learning environment function SDT-related rationale Immersive narrative Major Tom / missing Mars scenario Meaning and immersion Autonomy/relevance Competition Best team submission Inter-team intensity Competence Reward Prize for the winning team Recognition Competence / extrinsic regulation Teamwork Groups of up to five Collaboration Relatedness Creative freedom Open visual and interaction decisions Ownership of the task Autonomy Final recognition Public announcement/feedback Closure and legitimacy Competence/relatedness Instrument and Data Collection Data were collected through an ad hoc post-activity questionnaire designed for this intervention. The instrument was informed by SDT and by relevant dimensions from the Academic Motivation Scale of Vallerand et al. ( 1992 ) and from the work on motivated learning in university students of Morales Vallejo ( 2011 ). It was intended not as a fully validated measure but as a theory-informed descriptive instrument for this learning environment. The questionnaire included three sections: contextual questions on academic background and previous hackathon experience; 12 five-point Likert-type items grouped into five dimensions (intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, perceived competencies, relatedness and collaborative work, and comparison and satisfaction) and three open-ended questions on motivation, perceived learning, and suggestions for improvement. The questionnaire was administered once the hackathon had ended. Students received a Microsoft Forms link through the virtual classroom, and the form remained open for several days. The invitation explained the purpose of the study, the anonymous nature of responses, and the absence of academic consequences for participation or non-participation. The complete questionnaire and codebook are available in both English and Spanish in a Zenodo repository, together with the hackathon briefing in English (García-Vázquez et al., 2026 ). Data Analysis The quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed in a complementary manner, consistent with the study's descriptive purpose. For the 12 Likert-type items, descriptive statistics were calculated at both the item and dimension levels. Specifically, means and standard deviations were obtained to summarize central tendency and dispersion, and the percentage of responses in the upper range of the scale was also calculated to facilitate interpretation of positive endorsement patterns. These analyses were intended to characterize students’ perceptions of the hackathon as a learning environment rather than to test hypotheses about differences between groups. As an initial step in examining the ad hoc instrument's performance, internal consistency was estimated for the multi-item dimensions using Cronbach’s alpha. Following conventional criteria, alpha values of .70 or above were interpreted as satisfactory for descriptive purposes, while values of .80 or above were treated as strong evidence of internal consistency (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994 ; Oviedo Celina & Campo-Arias, 2005 ). No alpha coefficient was calculated for the single-item relatedness and collaborative work dimension. In line with the study's scope, these estimates were interpreted as preliminary evidence of internal consistency rather than as a full psychometric validation of the questionnaire. Responses to the three open-ended questions were analyzed through an inductive thematic procedure. An initial stage of pre-coding and response organization was assisted by a generative AI tool, after which the research team reviewed all codes and provisional categories. The researchers then refined the coding structure, consolidated recurrent topics, and refined the thematic structure through discussion and triangulation. This procedure was informed by the logic of thematic analysis as described by Braun & Clarke ( 2006 ), while also following recent methodological discussions on the transparent use of AI-assisted support in qualitative analysis (Naeem et al., 2025 ). The role of AI was therefore limited to a preliminary organizational function; the interpretation, verification, and final naming of themes remained the responsibility of the researchers. Finally, quantitative and qualitative findings were brought together through a convergent descriptive logic. The thematic results were used to contextualize and deepen the interpretation of Likert-type responses, particularly regarding autonomy, creativity, competition, teamwork, and perceived organizational conditions. This integration was intended to provide a richer account of how the hackathon was experienced as a learning environment than either data strand would have offered independently. Ethical Considerations The study involved a voluntary and anonymous questionnaire administered in the context of ordinary teaching activity. According to a reasoned ethical pre-review by the Research Ethics Committee of the university, the project was considered minimal-risk educational research and did not require full ethics review. Results Sample Characteristics A total of 91 valid responses were obtained from the 213 students who participated in the hackathon, yielding a response rate of 42.7%. The respondents represented a heterogeneous group drawn from five design- and technology-related degree programs and three academic years, and they showed a relatively balanced distribution in prior hackathon experience. The descriptive variables used to characterize the sample were degree program, academic year, and prior hackathon experience. Table 2 summarizes these sample characteristics. Table 2 Sample characteristics by variable. N = 91 Variable Value N % Degree Multimedia and Graphic Design 42 46.2% Degree Bachelors in Multimedia and Graphic Design 15 16.5% Degree Audiovisual Design and Illustration 15 16.5% Degree Full-stack Development 10 11.0% Degree Design and Development of Video Games and Virtual Environments 9 9.9% Academic year Second 10 11.0% Academic year Third 42 46.2% Academic year Fourth 39 42.9% Prior hackathon experience Yes 42 46.2% Prior hackathon experience No 49 53.8% Prior hackathon experience DK/NR 0 0% Preliminary Internal Consistency of the Questionnaire As an initial step in examining the performance of the ad hoc questionnaire, internal consistency was estimated for the multi-item dimensions using Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951 ). Intrinsic motivation showed good internal consistency (α = 0.75), perceived competencies showed strong internal consistency (α = 0.83), and comparison and satisfaction showed strong internal consistency (α = 0.81). Extrinsic motivation was lower (α = 0.64) but acceptable for an exploratory descriptive instrument. No alpha coefficient was calculated for relatedness and collaborative work because a single item represented these dimensions. This is shown in Table 3 . Taken together, these coefficients support the descriptive use of most dimensions while also indicating that the questionnaire should be interpreted as a preliminary rather than fully validated measure. Table 3 Cronbach's alpha by questionnaire dimension Dimension k α Cronbach Intrinsic motivation 4 0.75 Extrinsic motivation 2 0.64 Perceived competencies 3 0.83 Relatedness and collaborative work 1 - Comparison and satisfaction 2 0.81 Quantitative Perceptions of the Learning Environment Overall, students reported positive perceptions across all five questionnaire dimensions, with all mean scores above 3.50 on the five-point scale. As shown in Table 4 , the highest mean score was observed for intrinsic motivation (M = 4.16, SD = 0.80), followed by comparison and satisfaction (M = 4.00, SD = 0.93), perceived competencies (M = 4.02, SD = 0.86), and relatedness and collaborative work (M = 3.96, SD = 0.89). Extrinsic motivation received the lowest mean score, although it remained positive overall (M = 3.81, SD = 1.06). The proportion of responses in the upper part of the scale was also substantial across dimensions, ranging from 63.7% for extrinsic motivation to 80.8% for intrinsic motivation. At the item level, the highest scores were observed for freedom in design and development decisions (M = 4.52, SD = 0.69; 94.5% of responses at 4 or 5), creative challenge (M = 4.19, SD = 0.73; 85.7%), practical application of knowledge (M = 4.10, SD = 0.83; 85.7%), and overall satisfaction (M = 4.10, SD = 0.80; 81.3%). Teamwork and the perceived development of technical and transferable skills were also rated positively. By contrast, competition and reward received more moderate evaluations, particularly the item on competitiveness between teams (M = 3.67, SD = 1.00; 58.2%). Full item-level results are presented in Table 5 . Table 4 Average, standard deviation, and percentage of responses > 4 by dimension Dimension A SD % > 4 Intrinsic motivation 4.16 0.80 80.8% Extrinsic motivation 3.81 1.06 63.7% Perceived competencies 4.02 0.86 79.9% Relatedness and collaborative work 3.96 0.89 73.6% Comparison and satisfaction 4.00 0.93 76.4% Note: Scale 1–5. A = Average; SD = Standard deviation. % ≥ 4 = Percentage of responses with a value greater than 4. Table 5 Average, standard deviation, and percentage of responses > 4 by item Item A SD % > 4 1. The activity was interesting to me 4.09 0.80 81.3% 2. I had sufficient freedom to make decisions about the project design and development 4.52 0.69 94.5% 3. The Major Tom scenario made the activity more immersive and motivating 3.85 0.83 61.5% 4. The challenge motivated me to seek creative solutions 4.19 0.73 85.7% 5. The possibility of winning a prize influenced my participation 3.95 1.11 69.2% 6. The competitiveness between teams made the activity more attractive 3.67 1.00 58.2% 7. The hackathon allowed me to apply my knowledge in a practical way 4.10 0.83 85.7% 8. The activity helped improve my technical and creative skills 3.97 0.95 78.0% 9. The activity strengthened skills such as communication, organization, and problem-solving 4.00 0.79 75.8% 10. Teamwork improved my learning experience 3.96 0.89 73.6% 11. The hackathon was more motivating than other academic activities 3.90 1.04 71.4% 12. I am satisfied with the overall experience 4.10 0.80 81.3% Note: Scale 1–5. A = Average; SD = Standard deviation. % ≥ 4 = Percentage of responses with a value greater than 4. Qualitative Themes on Students’ Experience of the Learning Environment The qualitative responses added interpretive depth to the descriptive patterns observed in the Likert-type items. Four recurrent themes were identified across the open-ended responses: creativity in a playful narrative, collaboration under time pressure, gamification and rewards as ambivalent drivers, and organizational conditions and perceived legitimacy. Table 6 presents the thematic structure and frequencies. The first two themes, creativity located in a playful narrative and collaboration under time pressure , captured the central positive features of the experience. Students valued the fictional scenario as a framework for originality and experimentation, while also describing teamwork as meaningful but intensified by the limited timeframe. The other two themes, gamification and rewards as an ambivalent driver , and organizational conditions and perceived legitimacy , pointed to more mixed perceptions. Prize and competition were described as motivating by some students but secondary or uneven by others. At the same time, comments on workload, clarity, and fairness suggested that the educational value of the hackathon depended partly on how its organizational conditions were perceived. Table 6 Qualitative themes on students’ experience of the hackathon learning environment Topic Main codes Frequency Creativity located in playful narrative Autonomy/creativity; Technical learning 43 (47.3%) Collaboration under time pressure Social collaboration; Time/pressure management 44 (48.4%) Gamification and rewards: an ambivalent driver Gamification/extrinsic motivation 30 (33.0%) Organizational conditions and perceived legitimacy Organization/clarity; Fairness/workload 37 (40.7%) Note: frequency = n (percentage of N = 91). Discussion Taken together, the findings suggest that the hackathon functioned as a generally positive higher education learning environment in which autonomy, creative challenge, practical application of knowledge, and teamwork were central to students’ experience. Competition and rewards were also valued, but were perceived more ambivalently, and the educational value of the activity depended partly on how its organizational conditions were perceived. From a learning environments perspective, these findings support the view that hackathons in higher education should be understood not simply as engaging events, but as structured environments in which temporal, social, pedagogical, and symbolic conditions interact. In the present case, bounded time, an open-ended task, teamwork, digital production, narrative framing, competition, and public recognition were configured into a coherent experience. Students appeared to respond not only to the novelty of the format but to a learning environment perceived as meaningful, creatively open, and practically relevant. Interpreted through Self-Determination Theory, the findings are broadly consistent with the idea that the quality of motivation in intensive settings depends on whether the environment supports autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy appears especially salient in this study. The highest-rated item referred to freedom to make decisions about project design and development, and the qualitative theme of creativity within a playful narrative reinforces that pattern. In this sense, the hackathon seems to have provided meaningful room for ownership, interpretation, and decision-making rather than requiring students merely to execute a fixed task. This point is important because it suggests that the positive motivational value of the activity was more closely tied to students’ perception that they could shape the form and direction of their work than to the presence of game elements alone. Competence was also strongly represented in students’ responses. Practical application of knowledge, creative challenge, and perceived development of technical and transferable skills all received positive evaluations. This pattern aligns with literature suggesting that hackathons can serve as applied and authentic environments in which participants mobilize disciplinary knowledge in tangible ways rather than through decontextualized exercises (Araujo et al., 2025 ; Garcia, 2023 ; Sotaquirá-Gutiérrez et al., 2025 ). In the present study, the task of designing an adaptive 404 error page appears to have been sufficiently bounded to be manageable while still leaving enough openness to support experimentation and creative problem-solving. That balance is likely one reason why competence-related perceptions remained positive despite the format's intensity. Relatedness was present, although somewhat less strongly elaborated in the questionnaire than autonomy and competence. Quantitatively, teamwork was highly valued, and qualitatively, collaboration under time pressure emerged as a dominant theme. These results suggest that students generally experienced teamwork as supportive of learning, but not as uncomplicatedly so. The qualitative data indicate that collaboration was meaningful, in part, because it occurred under temporal pressure, which intensified coordination and shared decision-making. At the same time, this same intensity may explain why teamwork was experienced as both valuable and demanding. In SDT terms, then, relatedness appears to have been supported, but within a format that also exposed students to pressure, interdependence, and the need for rapid coordination. One of the most relevant findings of the study is that gamification itself was neither rejected nor the strongest driver of positive perceptions. Narrative, prize, and competition all formed part of the environmental design, yet students responded more strongly to autonomy, challenge, and practical application than to competition alone. This is consistent with the qualitative theme of “gamification and rewards as an ambivalent driver,” which suggests that the reward structure functioned as a secondary motivational layer rather than as the core educational value of the activity. In this respect, the findings support a more restrained reading of gamification in higher education (Alonso-Sánchez et al., 2025 ). Game-informed elements may add meaning, visibility, and energy to an activity. However, their pedagogical value depends on how they interact with task structure, perceived legitimacy, and opportunities for meaningful participation. In the present study, gamification seems to have worked best not when it intensified competition for its own sake, but when it supported a coherent, bounded, and imaginative learning environment. This point connects directly to one of the study’s most important qualitative insights: the significance of organizational conditions and perceived legitimacy. Students’ comments suggest that the educational value of the hackathon was shaped not only by the challenge itself, but also by the balance of workload, clarity of expectations, and fairness in how the activity was conducted. This is a particularly relevant contribution because it shifts the discussion away from the assumption that intensity is inherently motivating. The findings instead suggest that bounded time and competition can be productive only when students perceive the surrounding conditions as manageable and legitimate. In other words, organizational clarity was not peripheral to the learning environment; it was part of what made that environment educationally meaningful. In this sense, the study contributes to research on learning environments by showing that hackathons can be analyzed as multidimensional educational settings rather than merely as formats or events. The present case indicates that their value lies in how they combine time structure, task openness, teamwork, material tools, narrative framing, and evaluative visibility into a particular environment of participation (Fraser, 1998 ; Moos, 1979 ). This matters for the field because much of the literature on hackathons still emphasizes innovation, engagement, or skills in relatively general terms. By contrast, the present study foregrounds the configuration of conditions through which those outcomes are perceived and interpreted. It also contributes methodologically by documenting an ad hoc questionnaire designed to capture motivational and environmental dimensions of this kind of experience, while treating its psychometric performance cautiously and descriptively rather than as definitive validation. The findings also have practical implications for active learning paradigm and the design of intensive higher education learning environments. First, autonomy should be deliberately built into the activity through real choices in design and execution rather than left to emerge incidentally. Second, competence is likely to be supported when the task is both authentic and bounded—that is, when students can recognize its practical relevance without being overwhelmed by excessive ambiguity. Third, teamwork should be treated as a design condition rather than as an automatic benefit of group work; this requires attention to coordination demands, time allocation, and expectations. Fourth, if competition and rewards are used, they should be framed as part of a meaningful challenge rather than as the sole source of incentive. Finally, organizational legitimacy matters. Transparent criteria, manageable workload, and clear expectations appear to be essential conditions for intensive formats to function as constructive learning environments rather than merely as high-pressure experiences. These findings should nevertheless be interpreted with several limitations in mind. First, the study relied on a voluntary convenience sample of 91 respondents out of 213 participants, which limits transferability and raises the possibility of response bias. Second, the study focused on self-reported perceptions collected after the activity, so the findings concern perceived motivation and perceived learning rather than objective learning gains or longitudinal effects. Third, the research was conducted in a single institutional context and in degree programs specifically related to design and technology, so the results should not be generalized uncritically to other disciplinary settings. Fourth, the questionnaire was designed ad hoc for this study and showed only preliminary internal-consistency evidence, with one single-item dimension and a weaker coefficient for extrinsic motivation. Finally, although the qualitative component enriched the interpretation of the quantitative findings, it remained limited in depth relative to interviews, observations, or more extensive qualitative designs. These limitations also suggest directions for future research. Replication in other higher education contexts would help clarify whether similar environmental patterns emerge in other disciplines, institutional cultures, and hackathon formats. Comparative studies could examine how different forms of narrative framing, assessment, competition, or duration shape students’ perceptions of autonomy, competence, relatedness, and legitimacy. Future work could also combine self-report data with project assessments, peer evaluations, or observational evidence to relate perceived qualities of the learning environment to performance indicators. More robust instrument development would also be valuable, particularly if future studies aim to refine the measurement of relatedness, organizational legitimacy, and the ambivalent role of extrinsic motivators in intensive learning environments. Overall, the present findings suggest that the educational significance of a gamified hackathon lies less in gamification alone than in the way multiple environmental features are combined. In this case, the activity was perceived positively because it integrated creative freedom, authentic production, teamwork, temporal intensity, and a meaningful narrative frame within a coherent educational structure. At the same time, the results remind us that such environments remain sensitive to how clearly they are organized and how fairly they are experienced. For that reason, hackathons may be most productively understood not as inherently effective pedagogical solutions, but as learning environments whose motivational and educational value depends on design. Conclusions This study examined a gamified hackathon as a higher education learning environment rather than merely as an engaging instructional activity. The findings suggest that the educational value of the experience lay mainly in the way multiple environmental features were combined: bounded time, open-ended technical production, teamwork, practical relevance, and a meaningful narrative frame. Across the data, autonomy, creative challenge, practical application of knowledge, and collaboration emerged as the strongest positive features of students’ experience, whereas competition and reward were perceived more ambivalently. The study contributes to active learning paradigm and learning environments research by showing that hackathons can be analyzed as multidimensional settings shaped by organizational, pedagogical, social, material, and symbolic conditions. Although the study relied on a voluntary convenience sample and self-reported post-activity perceptions, the findings suggest that hackathons may be pedagogically valuable when designed as coherent learning environments that carefully balance challenge, autonomy, collaboration, and legitimacy. Declarations Data Availability The questionnaire and codebook have been deposited in Zenodo in both English and Spanish, together with the hackathon briefing in English. Repository details are cited in blinded form during peer review and will be fully disclosed in the final published version. References Almulla MA (2020) The Effectiveness of the Project-Based Learning (PBL) Approach as a Way to Engage Students in Learning. Sage Open 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020938702 Alonso-Sánchez JA, Alonso JLN, Santana-Monagas E (2025) Gamification in Higher Education: A Case Study in Educational Sciences. TechTrends 69(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-025-01056-2 Alvira Martín F (2011) La encuesta: una perspectiva general metodológica. Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas Araujo AA, Kalinowski M, Baldassarre MT (2025) Embracing Experiential Learning: Hackathons as an Educational Strategy for Shaping Soft Skills in Software Engineering. Software Engineering Education Conference, Proceedings , 319–324. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSEET66350.2025.00040 Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555 Fraser BJ (1998) Classroom Environment Instruments: Development, Validity and Applications. Learn Environ Res 1(1):7–34. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009932514731 Gallagher SE, Savage T (2023) Challenge-based learning in higher education: an exploratory literature review. Teach High Educ 28(6):1135–1157. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1863354 Garcia MB (2023) Fostering an Innovation Culture in the Education Sector: A Scoping Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Hackathon Research. Innov High Educ 48(4):739–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-023-09651-y García-Vázquez C, Melguizo C, Vega R, Balbás R, Cano González A (2026) UDIT Gamified Hackathon Questionnaire Responses (N = 91) [Dataset]. In Zenodo . https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18979065 Hershkovitz A, Lahav O (2024) Promoting Innovation Via a University-Organized Online Hackathon. Int J Teach Learn High Educ 35(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/1812-9129.1001 Moos RH (1979) Evaluating educational environments: Procedures, measures, findings, and policy implications (Number 3). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(82)90080-5 Morales Vallejo P (2011) Guía para construir cuestionarios y escalas de actitudes Naeem M, Smith T, Thomas L (2025) Thematic Analysis and Artificial Intelligence: A Step-by-Step Process for Using ChatGPT in Thematic Analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 24 . https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069251333886 Nunnally J, Bernstein I (1994) Psychometric Theory, 3rd edn, 1994. McGraw-Hill, New York , 3 Oviedo Celina H, Campo-Arias A (2005) Aproximación al uso Coeficiente Alfa de Cronbach. Revista Colombiana de Psiquiatría 34(4). https://doi.org/10.1590/S1135-57272002000200001 Oyetade K, Zuva T, Harmse A (2024) Evaluation of the impact of hackathons in education. Cogent Educ 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2392420 Parpala A, Lindblom-Ylänne S, Komulainen E, Entwistle N (2013) Assessing students’ experiences of teaching–learning environments and approaches to learning: Validation of a questionnaire in different countries and varying contexts. Learn Environ Res 16(2):201–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-013-9128-8 Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol 55(1):68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 Schulten C, Chounta IA (2024) How do we learn in and from Hackathons? A systematic literature review. Educ Inform Technol 2024 29(15):20103–20134. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10639-024-12668-1 . 29 Sotaquirá-Gutiérrez R, Beltran LM, Garzon Ruiz JP (2025) Hackathons as experiential learning platforms for engineering design skills. Cogent Educ 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2442187 Vallerand RJ, Pelletier LG, Blais MR, Briere NM, Senecal C, Vallieres EF (1992) The Academic Motivation Scale: A Measure of Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Amotivation in Education. Educ Psychol Meas 52(4):1003–1017. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004025 van den Beemt A, van de Watering G, Bots M (2023) Conceptualising variety in challenge-based learning in higher education: the CBL-compass. Eur J Eng Educ 48(1):24–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2022.2078181 Walker SL, Fraser BJ (2005) Development and Validation of an Instrument for Assessing Distance Education Learning Environments in Higher Education: The Distance Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES). Learn Environ Res 8(3):289–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-005-1568-3 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9713456","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":640247951,"identity":"559cf0bf-8ecf-482a-978a-1aad003af1d1","order_by":0,"name":"Carolina García-Vázquez","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0830-6621","institution":"University of Design, Innovation and Technology (UDIT)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Carolina","middleName":"","lastName":"García-Vázquez","suffix":""},{"id":640248103,"identity":"0f629a7e-ea6f-460d-8104-e1d9be6c0938","order_by":1,"name":"Rafael Conde Melguizo","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2571-3715","institution":"University of Design, Innovation and Technology (UDIT)","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rafael","middleName":"Conde","lastName":"Melguizo","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-05-14 10:41:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9713456/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9713456/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":109290098,"identity":"fc9ac35e-06c2-4af6-b8a9-4962f1811fa7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-15 06:47:56","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":35141,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAverage and standard deviation by dimension.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9713456/v1/b467faa9f009d120d05d6ed1.png"},{"id":109296388,"identity":"69c1ae8f-b29e-4fd2-b243-236abf821425","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-15 08:46:47","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":331332,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9713456/v1/278b7a9f-2a51-4f55-ada9-a3b173d04bd7.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eCharacterizing a gamified hackathon as a higher education learning environment.\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eHigher education is increasingly challenged to create learning environments that do more than transmit disciplinary knowledge. In fields related to design and technology, students are also expected to develop collaboration, problem-solving, creativity, and the capacity to produce meaningful artifacts under realistic constraints. From an active learning methodologies and environments perspective, these outcomes are not shaped only by instructional methods, but by the broader configuration of conditions under which learning takes place, including the organizational, social, temporal, pedagogical, and material features of the educational setting (Fraser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Moos, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin this broader pedagogical landscape, hackathons have attracted growing interest in education. Originally associated with the technology sector, hackathons have increasingly been adopted in schools and universities as intensive formats that combine teamwork, time-bound problem solving, iterative design, and the production of a tangible outcome (Garcia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Schulten \u0026amp; Chounta, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Recent reviews suggest educational hackathons can support technical learning, collaboration, creativity, and the development of transferable skills, while also creating conditions of time pressure, high task intensity, and uneven participation that require careful pedagogical orchestration (Oyetade et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Studies conducted in higher delivery and further shown that hackathons can be adapted to different organizational formats, including online and hybrid delivery, and can serve as meaningful sites of participation and innovation when intentionally designed for educational purposes rather than treated merely as extracurricular events (Hershkovitz \u0026amp; Lahav, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis shift is especially relevant in design- and technology-related degree programs, where learning is often organized around artifact production, applied decision-making, and the integration of technical and aesthetic criteria. Hackathon formats align well with these disciplinary logics because they combine authentic production, bounded challenge, collaborative work, and public evaluation within a compressed period. However, the literature remains fragmented, and fewer studies examine hackathons as learning environments in the fuller sense used in learning environments research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-Determination Theory (SDT) provides a convenient framework for examining this convergence. SDT proposes that higher-quality motivation is more likely when the learning environment supports the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan \u0026amp; Deci, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). This perspective is particularly relevant to hackathon-based pedagogy because such environments can simultaneously enable and constrain these needs. Open-ended design decisions, opportunities for experimentation, and student ownership may support autonomy; the practical resolution of a technically demanding challenge may strengthen competence; and intensive teamwork may enhance relatedness. At the same time, strong time pressure, public comparison, competitive reward structures, and unclear expectations may undermine these same needs if the environment is perceived as unfair, confusing, or overly controlling. SDT-informed reading is therefore useful not because it assumes hackathons are motivating, but because it helps analyze which environmental features are likely to support or hinder meaningful engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgainst this background, the present study examines a gamified hackathon implemented at a Spanish university as a higher education learning environment. The intervention involved 213 students enrolled in design and technology degree programs. Working in teams up to five, students were asked to design and develop an adaptive 404 error page within a science-fiction narrative in which Major Tom had lost Mars from the Solar System. The activity combined a bounded technical brief, collaborative production, creative freedom, a narrative frame, and a prize for the best team submission. Following the hackathon, a post-activity questionnaire comprising Likert-type and open-ended items was completed by 91 students.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study had three aims: to describe the hackathon as a higher education learning environment; to examine students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of motivation and learning within that environment; and to report initial internal-consistency evidence for an ad hoc questionnaire designed for this context. Accordingly, the study asked how the hackathon could be characterized as a learning environment, how students perceived motivation and learning within it, and what preliminary evidence supported the questionnaire\u0026rsquo;s use.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Theoretical Framework","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eHackathons as higher education learning environments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a learning environments perspective based on active learning paradigm, educational activities are shaped not only by instructional methods but also by the organizational, pedagogical, social, and material conditions through which learning occurs (Fraser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Moos, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e). This perspective is particularly useful for intensive formats such as hackathons, where time, task structure, collaboration, evaluation, and access to resources jointly shape participation and perceived learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHackathons can plausibly be treated as higher education learning environments because they assemble, in a bounded and recognizable format, a set of educationally meaningful conditions. They typically involve a clearly delimited timeframe, teamwork, a shared challenge, access to digital tools and resources, iterative production, and the expectation of a tangible outcome that can be presented and assessed. Educational research has increasingly documented the diffusion of hackathons beyond their original technological and innovation-oriented settings into formal learning contexts, where they have been used to promote applied problem-solving, creativity, collaboration, and engagement (Garcia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Schulten \u0026amp; Chounta, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In disciplinary terms, hackathons are also adjacent to active pedagogies such as project-based learning (PBL) and challenge-based learning (CBL). Like PBL, they organize learning around the production of a meaningful artifact and the integration of knowledge through doing (Almulla, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Like CBL, they place students before an open or semi-open challenge that requires decision-making, collaboration, and responses to realistic constraints (Gallagher \u0026amp; Savage, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; van den Beemt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). However, hackathons also add a distinctive combination of temporal compression, public culmination, and intensified collaboration that make them analytically different from longer project formats.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent literature suggests that hackathons can foster technical learning, teamwork, creativity, and authenticity, while also generating tensions related to time pressure, uneven participation, cognitive overload, and uncertainty about evaluation (Araujo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Garcia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Oyetade et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Sotaquir\u0026aacute;-Guti\u0026eacute;rrez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Their educational value, therefore, depends less on the format itself than on how the event is designed, scaffolded, and interpreted by participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis point becomes even more relevant when hackathons are deliberately gamified. In higher education, gamification is increasingly understood not merely as the addition of superficial rewards, but as a form of pedagogical and motivational design capable of shaping how students interpret a task, how they position themselves within it, and how they experience challenge, immersion, and recognition (Alonso-S\u0026aacute;nchez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). In a gamified hackathon, elements such as narrative framing, inter-team comparisons, symbolic rewards, time-bounded progression, and public recognition are not mere ornaments; they become part of the learning environment itself. They alter the meaning of the task, define expectations of performance, influence the emotional tone of participation, and contribute to the perceived legitimacy of the experience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSelf-Determination Theory and Motivational Design in Gamified Intensive Settings\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo interpret those conditions, Self-Determination Theory (SDT) provides a useful and parsimonious lens. SDT argues that the quality of motivation depends in large part on whether the social context supports the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan \u0026amp; Deci, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). In educational settings, this perspective has been widely used to explain why some learning environments foster engagement, persistence, and perceived value more effectively than others. Its relevance here lies in its contextual sensitivity: motivation is not treated as a fixed trait of the learner, but as something shaped by how the environment is organized and experienced. For a study situated in the tradition of learning environments research, SDT is therefore useful because it helps articulate how particular environmental characteristics may support or frustrate students\u0026rsquo; motivational functioning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eApplied to hackathon-based pedagogy, SDT helps explain why intensive collaborative settings can be experienced as either energizing or controlling. Autonomy may be supported when students can make meaningful decisions about design, problem-solving strategies, and the final product's form. Competence may be supported when the challenge is sufficiently demanding to be worthwhile, yet sufficiently structured to allow students to experience mastery through the practical application of knowledge. Relatedness may be supported through cooperation, shared purpose, peer exchange, and the sense of belonging that often emerges in concentrated team-based work. Importantly, none of these outcomes is automatic. Open-ended tasks do not necessarily foster autonomy if expectations are unclear; demanding challenges do not necessarily foster competence if students feel overwhelmed; and teamwork does not necessarily foster relatedness if coordination is poor or participation is uneven. This is one reason why intensive formats such as hackathons deserve careful environmental analysis rather than categorical pedagogical endorsement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGame-informed elements can support or undermine autonomy, competence, and relatedness depending on how they are implemented. Narrative may enhance meaning and immersion, rewards may function as recognition, and competition may focus effort, but these same elements can also be perceived as controlling or unfair. The questionnaire was therefore designed to capture not only satisfaction but also key motivational and environmental dimensions of the experience, drawing on SDT and prior work in academic motivation and learning environment measurement (Fraser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Parpala et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Vallerand et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e; Walker \u0026amp; Fraser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eResearch Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study adopted a descriptive cross-sectional design based on a post-activity questionnaire administered after a gamified hackathon in higher education (Alvira Mart\u0026iacute;n, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The aim was not to test causal effects or compare conditions, but to document how students perceived a bounded educational experience and to describe the hackathon as a learning environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe design combined quantitative and qualitative data. Likert-type items captured students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of key motivational and environmental dimensions. At the same time, open-ended questions allowed participants to elaborate on motivating aspects of the experience, perceived learning, and suggested improvements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eContext, Settings, and Participants\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted at a Spanish higher education institution offering degree programs in design and technology, during a parallel event held in November 2025 as part of the regional Science and Innovation Week. The hackathon was integrated into subjects related to web design and development and took place within the formal academic setting rather than as an extracurricular activity. In this sense, the experience combined institutional curricular embedding with an event-based intensive format.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe accessible population consisted of 213 students enrolled in five official degree programs: Multimedia and Graphic Design (Degree and Bachelor's), Audiovisual Design and Illustration (Degree), Full-Stack Development (Degree), and Design and Development of Video Games and Virtual Environments (Degree). Participation in the hackathon formed part of the academic activity, whereas participation in the questionnaire study was voluntary, anonymous, and had no academic consequences. No exclusion criteria were established, as all students participating in the hackathon were eligible to respond to the post-activity questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 91 students completed the questionnaire after the hackathon, representing 42.7% of the participating population. The analytic sample was therefore a voluntary convenience sample composed of students who agreed to participate during the data collection period. In addition to the perception items, the questionnaire collected contextual variables to characterize the sample, namely degree program, academic year, and prior participation in hackathons of a similar nature. These variables were included to support a more precise descriptive reading of the results and to situate students\u0026rsquo; responses within the diversity of the participating cohort.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eHackathon Design and Learning Environment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe educational intervention consisted of a one-week gamified hackathon focused on creating an adaptive 404 error webpage. Students worked in teams of up to five members and were asked to design and develop a web-based solution for a fictional scenario in which Major Tom had lost Mars from the Solar System. The product to be developed was therefore technically bound but creatively open: all teams addressed the same general challenge while retaining considerable freedom in visual design, interaction, animations, and narrative interpretation. The use of HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, and visual effects formed part of the expected technical basis of the task.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe hackathon was designed to simulate a condensed professional sprint. Participants worked over a limited period of one week, using Visual Studio Code as the principal development environment, with access to standard extensions that facilitated preview and iteration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom the perspective adopted in this study, these design features constituted the core of the learning environment under examination. First, the temporal dimension was defined by bounded duration and deadline pressure. Second, the pedagogical dimension was shaped by an assessable technical-creative challenge with a shared brief and open-ended solution paths. Third, the social dimension was structured through small-group collaboration, intra-team coordination, and inter-team comparison. Fourth, the material and digital dimension included access to development tools, screen-based production, and the technical requirements of responsive web design. Fifth, the evaluative dimension was defined by the public recognition of the best submission and by explicit attention to creativity and technical execution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo make this environmental and motivational design explicit, the main gamified features of the hackathon were identified in terms of their concrete operationalization within the activity, their function within the learning environment, and their expected motivational relevance. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, the experience combined narrative framing, competition, reward, teamwork, creative freedom, and final recognition as interrelated design elements rather than as isolated techniques.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGamified design elements of the hackathon and their function within the learning environment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGamification element\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOperationalization in the hackathon\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLearning environment function\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSDT-related rationale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImmersive narrative\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMajor Tom / missing Mars scenario\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeaning and immersion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAutonomy/relevance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompetition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBest team submission\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-team intensity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompetence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReward\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrize for the winning team\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecognition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompetence / extrinsic regulation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeamwork\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroups of up to five\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollaboration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelatedness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCreative freedom\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOpen visual and interaction decisions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOwnership of the task\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAutonomy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinal recognition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePublic announcement/feedback\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClosure and legitimacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompetence/relatedness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInstrument and Data Collection\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were collected through an ad hoc post-activity questionnaire designed for this intervention. The instrument was informed by SDT and by relevant dimensions from the Academic Motivation Scale of Vallerand et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e) and from the work on motivated learning in university students of Morales Vallejo (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). It was intended not as a fully validated measure but as a theory-informed descriptive instrument for this learning environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire included three sections: contextual questions on academic background and previous hackathon experience; 12 five-point Likert-type items grouped into five dimensions (intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, perceived competencies, relatedness and collaborative work, and comparison and satisfaction) and three open-ended questions on motivation, perceived learning, and suggestions for improvement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire was administered once the hackathon had ended. Students received a Microsoft Forms link through the virtual classroom, and the form remained open for several days. The invitation explained the purpose of the study, the anonymous nature of responses, and the absence of academic consequences for participation or non-participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe complete questionnaire and codebook are available in both English and Spanish in a Zenodo repository, together with the hackathon briefing in English (Garc\u0026iacute;a-V\u0026aacute;zquez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed in a complementary manner, consistent with the study's descriptive purpose. For the 12 Likert-type items, descriptive statistics were calculated at both the item and dimension levels. Specifically, means and standard deviations were obtained to summarize central tendency and dispersion, and the percentage of responses in the upper range of the scale was also calculated to facilitate interpretation of positive endorsement patterns. These analyses were intended to characterize students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the hackathon as a learning environment rather than to test hypotheses about differences between groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs an initial step in examining the ad hoc instrument's performance, internal consistency was estimated for the multi-item dimensions using Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha. Following conventional criteria, alpha values of .70 or above were interpreted as satisfactory for descriptive purposes, while values of .80 or above were treated as strong evidence of internal consistency (Nunnally \u0026amp; Bernstein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e; Oviedo Celina \u0026amp; Campo-Arias, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). No alpha coefficient was calculated for the single-item relatedness and collaborative work dimension. In line with the study's scope, these estimates were interpreted as preliminary evidence of internal consistency rather than as a full psychometric validation of the questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResponses to the three open-ended questions were analyzed through an inductive thematic procedure. An initial stage of pre-coding and response organization was assisted by a generative AI tool, after which the research team reviewed all codes and provisional categories. The researchers then refined the coding structure, consolidated recurrent topics, and refined the thematic structure through discussion and triangulation. This procedure was informed by the logic of thematic analysis as described by Braun \u0026amp; Clarke (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), while also following recent methodological discussions on the transparent use of AI-assisted support in qualitative analysis (Naeem et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The role of AI was therefore limited to a preliminary organizational function; the interpretation, verification, and final naming of themes remained the responsibility of the researchers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, quantitative and qualitative findings were brought together through a convergent descriptive logic. The thematic results were used to contextualize and deepen the interpretation of Likert-type responses, particularly regarding autonomy, creativity, competition, teamwork, and perceived organizational conditions. This integration was intended to provide a richer account of how the hackathon was experienced as a learning environment than either data strand would have offered independently.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEthical Considerations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study involved a voluntary and anonymous questionnaire administered in the context of ordinary teaching activity. According to a reasoned ethical pre-review by the Research Ethics Committee of the university, the project was considered minimal-risk educational research and did not require full ethics review.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSample Characteristics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 91 valid responses were obtained from the 213 students who participated in the hackathon, yielding a response rate of 42.7%. The respondents represented a heterogeneous group drawn from five design- and technology-related degree programs and three academic years, and they showed a relatively balanced distribution in prior hackathon experience. The descriptive variables used to characterize the sample were degree program, academic year, and prior hackathon experience. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e summarizes these sample characteristics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSample characteristics by variable. N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValue\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDegree\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultimedia and Graphic Design\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDegree\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBachelors in Multimedia and Graphic Design\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDegree\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAudiovisual Design and Illustration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDegree\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFull-stack Development\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDegree\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDesign and Development of Video Games and Virtual Environments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcademic year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcademic year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcademic year\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFourth\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrior hackathon experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrior hackathon experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e53.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrior hackathon experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDK/NR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePreliminary Internal Consistency of the Questionnaire\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs an initial step in examining the performance of the ad hoc questionnaire, internal consistency was estimated for the multi-item dimensions using Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha (Cronbach, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1951\u003c/span\u003e). Intrinsic motivation showed good internal consistency (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.75), perceived competencies showed strong internal consistency (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.83), and comparison and satisfaction showed strong internal consistency (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.81). Extrinsic motivation was lower (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.64) but acceptable for an exploratory descriptive instrument. No alpha coefficient was calculated for relatedness and collaborative work because a single item represented these dimensions. This is shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaken together, these coefficients support the descriptive use of most dimensions while also indicating that the questionnaire should be interpreted as a preliminary rather than fully validated measure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCronbach's alpha by questionnaire dimension\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDimension\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ek\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eα Cronbach\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntrinsic motivation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExtrinsic motivation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived competencies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelatedness and collaborative work\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparison and satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.81\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eQuantitative Perceptions of the Learning Environment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, students reported positive perceptions across all five questionnaire dimensions, with all mean scores above 3.50 on the five-point scale. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, the highest mean score was observed for intrinsic motivation (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.16, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.80), followed by comparison and satisfaction (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.00, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.93), perceived competencies (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.02, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.86), and relatedness and collaborative work (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.96, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.89). Extrinsic motivation received the lowest mean score, although it remained positive overall (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.81, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.06). The proportion of responses in the upper part of the scale was also substantial across dimensions, ranging from 63.7% for extrinsic motivation to 80.8% for intrinsic motivation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the item level, the highest scores were observed for freedom in design and development decisions (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.52, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.69; 94.5% of responses at 4 or 5), creative challenge (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.19, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.73; 85.7%), practical application of knowledge (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.10, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.83; 85.7%), and overall satisfaction (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.10, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.80; 81.3%). Teamwork and the perceived development of technical and transferable skills were also rated positively. By contrast, competition and reward received more moderate evaluations, particularly the item on competitiveness between teams (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.67, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.00; 58.2%). Full item-level results are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAverage, standard deviation, and percentage of responses\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;4 by dimension\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDimension\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e% \u0026gt; 4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntrinsic motivation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExtrinsic motivation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.81\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e63.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived competencies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e79.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelatedness and collaborative work\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.96\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e73.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparison and satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e76.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eNote: Scale 1\u0026ndash;5. A\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Average; SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Standard deviation. % \u0026ge; 4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Percentage of responses with a value greater than 4.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAverage, standard deviation, and percentage of responses\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;4 by item\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e% \u0026gt; 4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. The activity was interesting to me\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e81.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. I had sufficient freedom to make decisions about the project design and development\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.69\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e94.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. The Major Tom scenario made the activity more immersive and motivating\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.85\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e61.5%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. The challenge motivated me to seek creative solutions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e85.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. The possibility of winning a prize influenced my participation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e69.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. The competitiveness between teams made the activity more attractive\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e58.2%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7. The hackathon allowed me to apply my knowledge in a practical way\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.83\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e85.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8. The activity helped improve my technical and creative skills\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.97\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e78.0%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9. The activity strengthened skills such as communication, organization, and problem-solving\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10. Teamwork improved my learning experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.96\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e73.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11. The hackathon was more motivating than other academic activities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e71.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12. I am satisfied with the overall experience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e81.3%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eNote: Scale 1\u0026ndash;5. A\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Average; SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Standard deviation. % \u0026ge; 4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Percentage of responses with a value greater than 4.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eQualitative Themes on Students\u0026rsquo; Experience of the Learning Environment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe qualitative responses added interpretive depth to the descriptive patterns observed in the Likert-type items. Four recurrent themes were identified across the open-ended responses: creativity in a playful narrative, collaboration under time pressure, gamification and rewards as ambivalent drivers, and organizational conditions and perceived legitimacy. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e presents the thematic structure and frequencies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe first two themes, \u003cem\u003ecreativity located in a playful narrative\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ecollaboration under time pressure\u003c/em\u003e, captured the central positive features of the experience. Students valued the fictional scenario as a framework for originality and experimentation, while also describing teamwork as meaningful but intensified by the limited timeframe.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe other two themes, \u003cem\u003egamification and rewards as an ambivalent driver\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eorganizational conditions and perceived legitimacy\u003c/em\u003e, pointed to more mixed perceptions. Prize and competition were described as motivating by some students but secondary or uneven by others. At the same time, comments on workload, clarity, and fairness suggested that the educational value of the hackathon depended partly on how its organizational conditions were perceived.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative themes on students\u0026rsquo; experience of the hackathon learning environment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTopic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMain codes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCreativity located in playful narrative\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAutonomy/creativity; Technical learning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43 (47.3%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollaboration under time pressure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial collaboration;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime/pressure management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e44 (48.4%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGamification and rewards: an ambivalent driver\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGamification/extrinsic motivation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30 (33.0%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrganizational conditions and perceived legitimacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrganization/clarity; Fairness/workload\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e37 (40.7%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003eNote: frequency\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;n (percentage of N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;91).\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eTaken together, the findings suggest that the hackathon functioned as a generally positive higher education learning environment in which autonomy, creative challenge, practical application of knowledge, and teamwork were central to students\u0026rsquo; experience. Competition and rewards were also valued, but were perceived more ambivalently, and the educational value of the activity depended partly on how its organizational conditions were perceived.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a learning environments perspective, these findings support the view that hackathons in higher education should be understood not simply as engaging events, but as structured environments in which temporal, social, pedagogical, and symbolic conditions interact. In the present case, bounded time, an open-ended task, teamwork, digital production, narrative framing, competition, and public recognition were configured into a coherent experience. Students appeared to respond not only to the novelty of the format but to a learning environment perceived as meaningful, creatively open, and practically relevant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterpreted through Self-Determination Theory, the findings are broadly consistent with the idea that the quality of motivation in intensive settings depends on whether the environment supports autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy appears especially salient in this study. The highest-rated item referred to freedom to make decisions about project design and development, and the qualitative theme of creativity within a playful narrative reinforces that pattern. In this sense, the hackathon seems to have provided meaningful room for ownership, interpretation, and decision-making rather than requiring students merely to execute a fixed task. This point is important because it suggests that the positive motivational value of the activity was more closely tied to students\u0026rsquo; perception that they could shape the form and direction of their work than to the presence of game elements alone.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompetence was also strongly represented in students\u0026rsquo; responses. Practical application of knowledge, creative challenge, and perceived development of technical and transferable skills all received positive evaluations. This pattern aligns with literature suggesting that hackathons can serve as applied and authentic environments in which participants mobilize disciplinary knowledge in tangible ways rather than through decontextualized exercises (Araujo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Garcia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Sotaquir\u0026aacute;-Guti\u0026eacute;rrez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). In the present study, the task of designing an adaptive 404 error page appears to have been sufficiently bounded to be manageable while still leaving enough openness to support experimentation and creative problem-solving. That balance is likely one reason why competence-related perceptions remained positive despite the format's intensity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelatedness was present, although somewhat less strongly elaborated in the questionnaire than autonomy and competence. Quantitatively, teamwork was highly valued, and qualitatively, collaboration under time pressure emerged as a dominant theme. These results suggest that students generally experienced teamwork as supportive of learning, but not as uncomplicatedly so. The qualitative data indicate that collaboration was meaningful, in part, because it occurred under temporal pressure, which intensified coordination and shared decision-making. At the same time, this same intensity may explain why teamwork was experienced as both valuable and demanding. In SDT terms, then, relatedness appears to have been supported, but within a format that also exposed students to pressure, interdependence, and the need for rapid coordination.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the most relevant findings of the study is that gamification itself was neither rejected nor the strongest driver of positive perceptions. Narrative, prize, and competition all formed part of the environmental design, yet students responded more strongly to autonomy, challenge, and practical application than to competition alone. This is consistent with the qualitative theme of \u0026ldquo;gamification and rewards as an ambivalent driver,\u0026rdquo; which suggests that the reward structure functioned as a secondary motivational layer rather than as the core educational value of the activity. In this respect, the findings support a more restrained reading of gamification in higher education (Alonso-S\u0026aacute;nchez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Game-informed elements may add meaning, visibility, and energy to an activity. However, their pedagogical value depends on how they interact with task structure, perceived legitimacy, and opportunities for meaningful participation. In the present study, gamification seems to have worked best not when it intensified competition for its own sake, but when it supported a coherent, bounded, and imaginative learning environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis point connects directly to one of the study\u0026rsquo;s most important qualitative insights: the significance of organizational conditions and perceived legitimacy. Students\u0026rsquo; comments suggest that the educational value of the hackathon was shaped not only by the challenge itself, but also by the balance of workload, clarity of expectations, and fairness in how the activity was conducted. This is a particularly relevant contribution because it shifts the discussion away from the assumption that intensity is inherently motivating. The findings instead suggest that bounded time and competition can be productive only when students perceive the surrounding conditions as manageable and legitimate. In other words, organizational clarity was not peripheral to the learning environment; it was part of what made that environment educationally meaningful.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this sense, the study contributes to research on learning environments by showing that hackathons can be analyzed as multidimensional educational settings rather than merely as formats or events. The present case indicates that their value lies in how they combine time structure, task openness, teamwork, material tools, narrative framing, and evaluative visibility into a particular environment of participation (Fraser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Moos, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e). This matters for the field because much of the literature on hackathons still emphasizes innovation, engagement, or skills in relatively general terms. By contrast, the present study foregrounds the configuration of conditions through which those outcomes are perceived and interpreted. It also contributes methodologically by documenting an ad hoc questionnaire designed to capture motivational and environmental dimensions of this kind of experience, while treating its psychometric performance cautiously and descriptively rather than as definitive validation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings also have practical implications for active learning paradigm and the design of intensive higher education learning environments. First, autonomy should be deliberately built into the activity through real choices in design and execution rather than left to emerge incidentally. Second, competence is likely to be supported when the task is both authentic and bounded\u0026mdash;that is, when students can recognize its practical relevance without being overwhelmed by excessive ambiguity. Third, teamwork should be treated as a design condition rather than as an automatic benefit of group work; this requires attention to coordination demands, time allocation, and expectations. Fourth, if competition and rewards are used, they should be framed as part of a meaningful challenge rather than as the sole source of incentive. Finally, organizational legitimacy matters. Transparent criteria, manageable workload, and clear expectations appear to be essential conditions for intensive formats to function as constructive learning environments rather than merely as high-pressure experiences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings should nevertheless be interpreted with several limitations in mind. First, the study relied on a voluntary convenience sample of 91 respondents out of 213 participants, which limits transferability and raises the possibility of response bias. Second, the study focused on self-reported perceptions collected after the activity, so the findings concern perceived motivation and perceived learning rather than objective learning gains or longitudinal effects. Third, the research was conducted in a single institutional context and in degree programs specifically related to design and technology, so the results should not be generalized uncritically to other disciplinary settings. Fourth, the questionnaire was designed ad hoc for this study and showed only preliminary internal-consistency evidence, with one single-item dimension and a weaker coefficient for extrinsic motivation. Finally, although the qualitative component enriched the interpretation of the quantitative findings, it remained limited in depth relative to interviews, observations, or more extensive qualitative designs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese limitations also suggest directions for future research. Replication in other higher education contexts would help clarify whether similar environmental patterns emerge in other disciplines, institutional cultures, and hackathon formats. Comparative studies could examine how different forms of narrative framing, assessment, competition, or duration shape students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of autonomy, competence, relatedness, and legitimacy. Future work could also combine self-report data with project assessments, peer evaluations, or observational evidence to relate perceived qualities of the learning environment to performance indicators. More robust instrument development would also be valuable, particularly if future studies aim to refine the measurement of relatedness, organizational legitimacy, and the ambivalent role of extrinsic motivators in intensive learning environments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the present findings suggest that the educational significance of a gamified hackathon lies less in gamification alone than in the way multiple environmental features are combined. In this case, the activity was perceived positively because it integrated creative freedom, authentic production, teamwork, temporal intensity, and a meaningful narrative frame within a coherent educational structure. At the same time, the results remind us that such environments remain sensitive to how clearly they are organized and how fairly they are experienced. For that reason, hackathons may be most productively understood not as inherently effective pedagogical solutions, but as learning environments whose motivational and educational value depends on design.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined a gamified hackathon as a higher education learning environment rather than merely as an engaging instructional activity. The findings suggest that the educational value of the experience lay mainly in the way multiple environmental features were combined: bounded time, open-ended technical production, teamwork, practical relevance, and a meaningful narrative frame. Across the data, autonomy, creative challenge, practical application of knowledge, and collaboration emerged as the strongest positive features of students\u0026rsquo; experience, whereas competition and reward were perceived more ambivalently.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study contributes to active learning paradigm and learning environments research by showing that hackathons can be analyzed as multidimensional settings shaped by organizational, pedagogical, social, material, and symbolic conditions. Although the study relied on a voluntary convenience sample and self-reported post-activity perceptions, the findings suggest that hackathons may be pedagogically valuable when designed as coherent learning environments that carefully balance challenge, autonomy, collaboration, and legitimacy.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire and codebook have been deposited in Zenodo in both English and Spanish, together with the hackathon briefing in English. Repository details are cited in blinded form during peer review and will be fully disclosed in the final published version.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlmulla MA (2020) The Effectiveness of the Project-Based Learning (PBL) Approach as a Way to Engage Students in Learning. Sage Open 10(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020938702\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/2158244020938702\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlonso-S\u0026aacute;nchez JA, Alonso JLN, Santana-Monagas E (2025) Gamification in Higher Education: A Case Study in Educational Sciences. TechTrends 69(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-025-01056-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11528-025-01056-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlvira Mart\u0026iacute;n F (2011) La encuesta: una perspectiva general metodol\u0026oacute;gica. Centro de Investigaciones Sociol\u0026oacute;gicas\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAraujo AA, Kalinowski M, Baldassarre MT (2025) Embracing Experiential Learning: Hackathons as an Educational Strategy for Shaping Soft Skills in Software Engineering. \u003cem\u003eSoftware Engineering Education Conference, Proceedings\u003c/em\u003e, 319\u0026ndash;324. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1109/CSEET66350.2025.00040\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1109/CSEET66350.2025.00040\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol 3(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1191/1478088706qp063oa\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/BF02310555\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFraser BJ (1998) Classroom Environment Instruments: Development, Validity and Applications. Learn Environ Res 1(1):7\u0026ndash;34. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009932514731\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1023/A:1009932514731\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGallagher SE, Savage T (2023) Challenge-based learning in higher education: an exploratory literature review. Teach High Educ 28(6):1135\u0026ndash;1157. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1863354\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/13562517.2020.1863354\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarcia MB (2023) Fostering an Innovation Culture in the Education Sector: A Scoping Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Hackathon Research. Innov High Educ 48(4):739\u0026ndash;762. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-023-09651-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10755-023-09651-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarc\u0026iacute;a-V\u0026aacute;zquez C, Melguizo C, Vega R, Balb\u0026aacute;s R, Cano Gonz\u0026aacute;lez A (2026) UDIT Gamified Hackathon Questionnaire Responses (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;91) [Dataset]. In \u003cem\u003eZenodo\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18979065\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5281/zenodo.18979065\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHershkovitz A, Lahav O (2024) Promoting Innovation Via a University-Organized Online Hackathon. Int J Teach Learn High Educ 35(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.7771/1812-9129.1001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.7771/1812-9129.1001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoos RH (1979) \u003cem\u003eEvaluating educational environments: Procedures, measures, findings, and policy implications\u003c/em\u003e (Number 3). Jossey-Bass. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(82)90080-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/0149-7189(82)90080-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorales Vallejo P (2011) \u003cem\u003eGu\u0026iacute;a para construir cuestionarios y escalas de actitudes\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNaeem M, Smith T, Thomas L (2025) Thematic Analysis and Artificial Intelligence: A Step-by-Step Process for Using ChatGPT in Thematic Analysis. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/16094069251333886\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/16094069251333886\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNunnally J, Bernstein I (1994) Psychometric Theory, 3rd edn, 1994. \u003cem\u003eMcGraw-Hill, New York\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOviedo Celina H, Campo-Arias A (2005) Aproximaci\u0026oacute;n al uso Coeficiente Alfa de Cronbach. Revista Colombiana de Psiquiatr\u0026iacute;a 34(4). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1590/S1135-57272002000200001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1590/S1135-57272002000200001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOyetade K, Zuva T, Harmse A (2024) Evaluation of the impact of hackathons in education. Cogent Educ 11(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2392420\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/2331186X.2024.2392420\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParpala A, Lindblom-Yl\u0026auml;nne S, Komulainen E, Entwistle N (2013) Assessing students\u0026rsquo; experiences of teaching\u0026ndash;learning environments and approaches to learning: Validation of a questionnaire in different countries and varying contexts. Learn Environ Res 16(2):201\u0026ndash;215. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-013-9128-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10984-013-9128-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRyan RM, Deci EL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol 55(1):68\u0026ndash;78. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchulten C, Chounta IA (2024) How do we learn in and from Hackathons? A systematic literature review. Educ Inform Technol 2024 29(15):20103\u0026ndash;20134. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/S10639-024-12668-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/S10639-024-12668-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSotaquir\u0026aacute;-Guti\u0026eacute;rrez R, Beltran LM, Garzon Ruiz JP (2025) Hackathons as experiential learning platforms for engineering design skills. Cogent Educ 12(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2442187\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/2331186X.2024.2442187\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVallerand RJ, Pelletier LG, Blais MR, Briere NM, Senecal C, Vallieres EF (1992) The Academic Motivation Scale: A Measure of Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Amotivation in Education. Educ Psychol Meas 52(4):1003\u0026ndash;1017. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0013164492052004025\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003evan den Beemt A, van de Watering G, Bots M (2023) Conceptualising variety in challenge-based learning in higher education: the CBL-compass. Eur J Eng Educ 48(1):24\u0026ndash;41. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2022.2078181\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03043797.2022.2078181\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWalker SL, Fraser BJ (2005) Development and Validation of an Instrument for Assessing Distance Education Learning Environments in Higher Education: The Distance Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES). Learn Environ Res 8(3):289\u0026ndash;308. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-005-1568-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10984-005-1568-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"University of Design, Innovation and Technology (UDIT)","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Gamification, active learning methodologies, hackathons, learning environments, higher education, self-determination theory.","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9713456/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9713456/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates a gamified hackathon as a learning environment in higher education at a Spanish university. The intervention engaged 213 students from design- and technology-related degree programs, who collaborated in teams of up to five to design and develop an adaptive 404 error page situated within a science-fiction narrative. Employing a descriptive cross-sectional design, the study collected post-activity questionnaire responses from 91 students. The instrument comprised 12 Likert-type items and three open-ended questions, aiming to capture students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the motivational and environmental dimensions of the experience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings suggest that the hackathon functioned as a positive learning environment. Students reported strong perceptions of autonomy, creative challenge, practical application of knowledge, and teamwork, whereas competition and reward were valued to a lesser extent. Qualitative themes reinforced these results by highlighting creativity within a playful narrative and collaboration under time constraints. Furthermore, workload balance, clarity of expectations, and fairness emerged as key factors influencing the perceived legitimacy of the activity. Preliminary internal-consistency estimates supported the descriptive use of most questionnaire dimensions; however, the instrument should be considered provisional rather than fully validated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study contributes to active learning methodologies and learning environments research by characterizing hackathons as multidimensional educational settings whose value depends on intentional design.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Characterizing a gamified hackathon as a higher education learning environment.","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-05-15 06:47:52","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9713456/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"75ec9b9c-c8d3-491d-8f7d-db1249332a90","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 15th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":68138645,"name":"Educational Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-15T06:47:52+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-05-15 06:47:52","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9713456","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9713456","identity":"rs-9713456","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}