Driving International Collaboration Beyond Boundaries Through Hackathons: A Comparative Analysis of Four Hackathon Setups

Abstract

Hackathon events have become increasingly popular in recent years as a modern tool for innovation in the education sector as they offer important learning advantages. Within the “INVITE” Erasmus+ project, four distinct hackathons were organized to bring together academic institutions, teachers, and students in the design of innovative international virtual and blended collaborations. In addition, as part of the “INVITE” project, an Open Interactive Digital Ecosystem (digital platform) has been developed to facilitate hackathons organization and was tested within two of the events. This platform can enhance hosting action-training programs providing a shared open resources space for educators to contact peers and design projects. All four hackathons were held during 2024 and their duration and type (onsite, blended, hybrid, and online) varied significantly. However, all hackathon topics were related to sustainability, SDGs, and Green Agenda. In total, more than 220 participants enrolled in the four events, including students, researchers, and professors from different disciplines, age groups, and countries. All participants were provided with qualitative surveys to explore their satisfaction and experiences. The results compare different hackathon setups to reveal valuable insights regarding the optimal design for higher education hackathons.

1. Introduction

Hackathons are an international and widely recognized phenomenon designed for a variety of purposes, including educational, corporate, and research initiatives [1]. In higher education, hackathons can help universities enrich academic experiences by enhancing participatory learning and promoting collaborative teaching [2]. More specifically, according to a systematic review on the educational benefits of hackathons, three important advantages emerged: the improvement of student’s soft skills (such as creativity, critical thinking, teamwork, project management skills, and working under pressure), learning novel knowledge (through exposing students to new experiences related to solving academically and socially pressing issues affecting their communities), and facilitating successful networking (students are excited to collaborate to develop solutions and network to form new connections) [3].

Indeed, the existing literature indicates that participation in hackathons significantly enhances a wide range of personal skill sets among participants, and although hackathons’ limited duration may prevent students from fully mastering these skills, hackathon events provide an ideal engaging and competitive environment where individuals can apply and enforce their existing competencies and further propel skills acquisition [4,5]. Among the intangible outcomes of hackathons, a recent systematic review reporting the current state of the art includes learning, networking, interdisciplinary collaboration, and fostering hackathon topic awareness [6].

Nevertheless, although the research has proven that hackathons, as an educational tool, make learning experiences more engaging and practical, obstacles such as cultural diversity and limited resources hinder their incorporation into educational environments; hence, further investigation is needed to develop strategies and optimize the benefits of integrating hackathons into academic settings [7]. Indeed, a recent systematic review supports the idea that additional research is needed to inform a framework that will bring together design aspects of hackathon events to support contextualization and establish the role of such initiatives as learning opportunities [8]. Furthermore, the literature suggests that further appraisal is particularly recommended for online and hybrid hackathon formats, considering that the interest and demand for these educational initiatives are growing on a worldwide level [2].

Overall, although hackathons are constantly gaining popularity, their design and implementation are not entirely problem-free; among the main concerns expressed in the literature are the lack of diversity among participants and the limited sustainability of the prototypes/solutions developed [9]. Considering all the above criticism toward educational hackathons, the present study conducts a comparative analysis of four different hackathon setups (online, hybrid, blended, and onsite) that involved international participants and focused on producing sustainable solutions and outcomes. The overall aim of this study was to uncover valuable insights and derive practical conclusions regarding the optimal design and essential digital tools for higher education hackathon events aimed at fostering international collaboration.

The significance of this study lies in the conspicuous lack of comprehensive, systematic comparisons across different hackathon setups, leading to a significant research gap in understanding how different formats influence key hackathon outcomes and overall effectiveness. Addressing this knowledge gap, this study provides rigorous, evidence-based insights that advance the understanding of hackathon dynamics to guide educators and organizers in designing more effective, inclusive, and sustainable educational hackathons.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The “INVITE” Project

The Erasmus+ project “Developing competencies for new virtual and blended modalities of international collaboration” (or simply “INVITE”) focuses on promoting inclusivity and diversity in higher education by providing resources and support for higher education institutions and their stakeholders (students, professors, researchers, and other staff). It encourages collaboration among universities by fostering partnerships that enhance the overall educational experience. The project also emphasizes the importance of cultural exchange and personal development through various activities and produced resources. More specifically, among the main objectives of the project was to map the current educational approaches for international virtual collaborations in academia; create a design framework for active learning tailored for virtual environments; design and implement an online action-training program aimed at interdisciplinary educators and institutional staff; establish an open, interactive digital ecosystem to support and host action-training programs/hackathons; and to highlight policies and strategies in higher education that promote innovation in teaching and learning. Overall, the INVITE project seeks to enhance teaching and learning skills for creating and executing innovative virtual and blended approaches fostering international cooperation within European Higher Education Institutions [10]. For more information, visit: https://invite-erasmus.eu/ (accessed on 28 April 2025).

The “Open Interactive Digital Ecosystem”

The “Open Interactive Digital Ecosystem” is a platform developed within the INVITE project to support the development and implementation during the runtime of international virtual and blended learning modalities. More specifically, the platform fosters collaboration and innovation by creating a repository of open access materials. These resources empower educators and learning designers to craft impactful educational experiences. Furthermore, the platform can host hackathons that bring together various stakeholders to design solutions addressing pressing global challenges, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Green Agenda. By offering these resources under an open commons license, the platform ensures widespread accessibility and adaptability, enabling users to organize hackathons, training sessions, and other collaborative events. The INVITE hackathon platform is tailored to a diverse audience, including teachers, learning designers, educational innovators, and students, and encourages active participation from these groups to either create new ideas or critically evaluate the existing ones for implementing international blended and virtual projects. During the INVITE project runtime, the Open Interactive Digital Ecosystem has been tested within two of the hackathon events that are analyzed in the next section (Chania hackathon and international DigieduHack). Link to visit the INVITE platform: https://invite.nile.hmu.gr/ (accessed on 28 April 2025).

2.2. The Four Hackathon Setups

2.2.1. Hackathon 1 (Chania, Greece)

The hackathon in Chania, Crete, Greece, was the first to pilot test the INVITE “Open Interactive Digital Ecosystem” platform. It was held in 27–31 May 2024 and was registered as part of the 11th International Week and 3rd ATHENA International Week event (https://11iw.hmu.gr/chania-invite-hackathon/ (accessed on 28 April 2025)). The hackathon was entitled “Gamified STEM course design on Green Agenda” and the aim was to design a course on Green Agenda using Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education and gamification techniques. The hackathon topic encouraged participants to think outside the box and leverage their skills and background knowledge to create impactful educational experiences by strengthening collaboration and fostering creativity to develop innovative solutions. The hackathon’s final outcome was to produce a dynamic course design by combining education, technology, and sustainability, focusing on the Green Agenda to inspire learners to explore ecological concepts and solutions.

2.2.2. Hackathon 2 (Cartagena, Colombia)

The hackathon was conceived as a blended cross-border challenge, maximizing the opportunities of blended and onsite environments for learning purposes. The onsite event took place in Cartagena, Colombia, in July 2024, and was preceded by an online phase in June 2024. The program was developed on the topic of building sustainable cities in Latin America, following the Blended Intensive Program (BIP) approach promoted by the INVITE project. The hackathon stood out for its relevance in the search for solutions to urban sustainability problems. Through an interdisciplinary and intercultural approach, the initiative involved participants from different countries, contexts, and areas of knowledge, demonstrating the transformative potential of international collaboration in virtual and blended learning modalities. This event sought to develop learners’ knowledge and skills for the transformation of urban environments in Latin America, with the participation of twelve institutions in seven countries, members of the Columbus Association. More information on the event is available at: https://columbus-web.org/succesfull-first-blended-cross-border-challenge-on-sustainable-cities-in-latin-america-supported-by-columbus-and-the-invite-project/ (accessed on 28 April 2025).

2.2.3. Hackathon 3 (Porto Alegre, Brazil)

In 2024, the city of Porto Alegre and several localities in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, in Brazil, faced a challenging year. Floods wreaked havoc on numerous communities, displacing thousands of people and leaving many families homeless. Once the tragedy was known, efforts were made to carry out the 2024 Innovation Marathon. Based on previous experiences of the INVITE project, the marathon was developed as a hybrid event designed to transform ideas into practical and innovative solutions to overcome climate change and social challenges that emerged from environmental disasters. The event lasted six days and combined in-person modality for local students and virtual exchanges for international students from Latin America belonging to the seventeen universities from eight different countries.

2.2.4. Hackathon 4 (International, DigiEduHack)

The main INVITE hackathon event that utilized the developed Open Interactive Digital Ecosystem on a large scale was entitled “Green Campus Hackathon: Building Digital Solutions for SDG and Green Agenda Integration in University Life”. The hackathon was also registered and hosted in Digital Education Hackathon 2024 (DigiEduHack) that was held between 13 and 14 November 2024 (https://digieduhack.com/challenges/green-campus-hackathon-building-digital-solutions-for-sdg-and-green-agenda (accessed on 5 May 2025)). Its main objective was to enhance the problem-solving skills of participants, focusing on SDGs and Green Agenda-related topics, including an international and intercultural dimension. “Green Campus Hackathon” challenged everyone in the higher education community (students, academics, and administrative staff) to make a real impact on campus life by enhancing international collaboration, creativity, and innovation to propose original, feasible, and sustainable solutions for global environmental problems. Teams produced solutions in the form of pitch deck presentations that could be incorporated into the universities’ strategic planning, to enhance sustainable and green development according to the 2030 Agenda for SDGs and other local or national Green Agenda policies. The final pitch deck videos produced by the participants can be found on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/@nile-lab8585/playlists (accessed on 5 May 2025)).

2.2.5. Hackathon Setup Comparison

In

Table 1. Hackathon setup comparison.

	Hackathon 1	Hackathon 2	Hackathon 3	Hackathon 4
Location	Chania, Greece	International and onsite in Cartagena, Colombia	International and onsite in Porto Alegre, Brazil	International, DigiEduHack
Hackathon title	Gamified STEM Course design on Green Agenda	Building sustainable cities in Latin America	Innovation marathon 2024: Porto Alegre, a resilient city	Green Campus Hackathon: building digital solutions for SDGs and Green Agenda integration in university life
Dates	27–31 May 2024	11 June–18 July 2024	31 October–8 November 2024	13–14 November 2024
Duration	5 days	Online: 8 sessions Onsite: 4 days	1-day training 5 days hackathon	2 days (2 × 12 h slots)
Event organization	Hosted during the 11th International Week and 3rd ATHENA International Week	In alignment with local hackathons organized by Universidad Tecnológica de Bolivar	In alignment with the local marathon in Porto Alegre	Hosted during the DigiEduHack 2024 registered in 2024 European sustainable development week
Event format	Onsite	Blended (onsite and online for all students)	Hybrid (onsite for local students and online for international students)	Online
Group formation	Teams or solo self-formulation	Teams organized according to 3 criteria: thematic self-selection, interdisciplinarity, and internationality	Teams organized according to 3 criteria: thematic self-selection, interdisciplinarity, and internationality	Teams Self/host formulation
Participants profile	10 participants from European countries, over 30 years old, mainly researchers and professors	50 bachelor students (38 onsite and 12 online) from 7 Latin American countries formed 7 teams. Average age 22 years old, over 15 academic disciplines	88 participants (62 local students and 26 international) from 8 Latin American countries formed 16 teams. Average age 23 years old, over 15 academic disciplines	66 international participants (from bachelor students to professors), over 18 years old, forming 15 teams
Hackathon sessions	Pre-Event: - Registration - Training Event: - Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate (ADDIE) methodology design - Submit solutions Post-Event: - Project evaluation - Winner’s announcement	Day 1: - Enlistment - Context - Conferences, inspiration rounds Day 2: - Ideation of solutions - Prototyping Day 3: - Business model - Validation with real users Day 4: - Pitch presentations - Awards	Online Training: - Meet the teams - Methodology (how Moodle platform works) Event: - Kick-off - Conferences, inspiration rounds - Definitions of ideas - Making decisions - Prototyping - Mentoring validations - Validation - Presentations - Awards	Pre-Event: - Registration - Training - Team formation - Kick-off session - Team building - Meet the mentors Event: - Welcome session - Project ideation - Welcome back session - Project finalization - Pitch preparation - Video submission Post-Event: - Projects evaluation - Award nomination
Dedicated hackathon platform	INVITE digital platform	-	-	INVITE digital platform
Tools used for the hackathon	ADDIE methodology	Canva Zoom Ideation materials INVITE course resources for BIP	Canva Zoom Moodle INVITE course resources for BIP	DigiEduHack Discord
Supportive material provided	Green Agenda ADDIE methodology Gamification INVITE digital platform guide	Canva presentation Onsite teaching materials Resources for BIP	Moodle materials INVITE course resources for BIP	Green Agenda/SDGs Solution canvases Pitch deck tips INVITE digital platform guide
Final solutions	PowerPoint presentations	Prototypes—web pages/synchronous onsite pitches	Prototypes/synchronous hybrid pitches	Pitch deck video presentations
Mentors	5 locals	3 internationals 1 local	3 internationals 12 locals	12 internationals
Jurors	4 locals	5 locals	4 locals	3 internationals
Evaluation	100% by jurors	100% by jurors	100% by jurors	70% by jurors 30% by participants
Rewards	Collection of local traditional products	Diplomas prizes for the 3 first places	1st place: mentoring for developing prototype and participation in track lab/service learning 2nd Place: tecnopuc garage development program	1st place: EUR 250 gift card prize and 3 mentorship sessions with the INVITE consortium 2nd place: EUR 150 gift card prize

, we elaborate on the design aspects of the four distinct hackathon events that were organized within the INVITE project. More specifically, we provide data on significant setup aspects of the reported events, such as hackathon topic and event duration, event format, number of participants and their demographic characteristics, hackathon sessions program, the provided tools and materials, the final project solutions and their evaluation process, as well as the prizes awarded.

2.3. Research Method

The main research questions that guided this study included the following:

• What are the key advantages and challenges associated with each hackathon setup?
• What are participants’ perceptions and overall experience in each hackathon setup?
• What best practices can be identified for designing higher education hackathons?

Based on the available quantitative data derived from each hackathon event survey, the evaluation criteria were classified into three broad categories to analyze participant feedback, including (1) Learning Experiences and Education, which focused on aspects such as the achievement of learning objectives, relevance of content, and interdisciplinary engagement; (2) Team Communication and Collaboration, encompassing participant interaction, team formation, and mentorship support; and (3) Hackathon Organization and Design, which captured perceptions of event structure, clarity of objectives, judging criteria, and overall satisfaction with logistics and planning. Questions that did not directly align with these themes (e.g., preferences on hackathon format and prior experience) were excluded from this classification to maintain focus and consistency among the reported data.

For the quantitative analysis, questions focused on obtaining tangible, measurable data from each hackathon event were grouped under the three aforementioned categories, according to their thematic focus. Each question’s responses were processed to calculate a weighted average score, factoring in the percentage distribution of positive responses across a 5-point Likert scale. Scores closer to 1 indicated lower participant satisfaction, while scores closer to 5 indicated higher satisfaction. In the case of one retrieved questionnaire, where the Likert scale originally ranged from 1 to 4, the values were converted to a 1–5 Likert scale using a linear transformation method. This approach posed a methodological limitation, as it assumed interval-level properties for ordinal data and introduced a neutral midpoint absent in the original format, slightly shifting the scores distribution and the assumption of equal intervals. However, considering the descriptive nature of this study and the need for consistent scaling across multiple questionnaires, this transformation is justified and does not substantially impede the overall analysis. The average scores were then aggregated within each category to produce a comparative metric across the hackathon setups. This method enabled a structured comparison of participant perceptions, providing valuable insights into the strengths and areas for improvement within each thematic dimension of the hackathon events.

2.4. Consent for Participation

All participants of the four hackathons were informed and consented to participate voluntarily at the hackathons activities and agreed on data sharing policies. More specifically, in Hackathon 1 (Chania, Greece), participation was completely voluntary and data collected were anonymous. Participants were also informed that they could withdraw from the hackathon whenever they wanted to without any consequences. Furthermore, electronic informed consent was obtained from all participants in Hackathon 1. Participants in Hackathon 4 (international, DigiEduHack) were informed that their personal data would be collected, stored, and used for the purposes of the hackathon and in accordance with the data protection regulations. For research purposes, anonymized data derived from participants’ activities could be analyzed and used by the organizers and the INVITE consortium to improve hackathon processes, enhance educational outcomes, and contribute to the research initiatives. These data did not include any personal, identifiable information. Electronic informed consent was obtained from all participants.

In both Latin American hackathons (Hackathon 2—Cartagena, Colombia, and Hackathon 3—Porto Alegre, Brazil), participation was voluntary. Personal-data-usage consent was obtained at the beginning of each hackathon event during the registration process. In both cases, the enrolled universities hosting the onsite hackathons provided the consent statement and the described data sharing policy. More specifically, in the survey questionnaires, each host/co-organizer university included a consent statement for the use of data for statistical purposes.

Overall, the collected data regarded adult participants who voluntarily chose to participate in the enrolled activities. Since all participants were capable of providing informed consent and participated without coercion, this study posed minimal risk and did not involve sensitive or personal information that would necessitate an ethical review. Additionally, the survey’s anonymous nature further reduced potential ethical concerns. Therefore, obtaining formal ethical committee approval was not deemed necessary, as this research adhered to the ethical standards for voluntary participation and informed consent in minimal-risk studies.

3. Results

In this comparative analysis, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected via participants’ post-hackathon surveys to assess the impact and effectiveness of the hackathon experiences across the different setups. The quantitative data provide a structured basis for comparing participant feedback on key hackathon aspects, such as learning outcomes, collaboration, and event organization. In addition, the qualitative responses offer deeper insights into participant perceptions, challenges, and suggestions, helping to contextualize and enrich the numerical results. This mixed-methods approach enables a more comprehensive understanding of the hackathon events, highlighting what participants experienced during their participation, and how those experiences can better inform the design of higher education hackathons to foster international collaboration modalities.

Nevertheless, we have to acknowledge that throughout the hackathon events, different surveys were employed, each tailored to specific objectives or contexts. This heterogeneity in instruments introduced variability in the types of questions posed. As a result, direct comparisons across different hackathon groups became more challenging. To address this challenge, we grouped similar or related questions from the different surveys into broad thematic categories. This approach was intended to create a common framework that enabled more meaningful comparisons across groups, despite the heterogeneity in the original instruments.

3.1. Quantitative Results

The quantitative data gathered from participants across the four INVITE hackathon setups highlight key trends in participant engagement, satisfaction levels, and areas that require enhancement. Overall, all hackathons demonstrated measurable outcomes that can inform future event planning and improvements. The following are the key findings derived from the results analysis classified into the three aforementioned thematic categories: (1) Learning Experiences and Education, (2) Team Communication and Collaboration, and (3) Hackathon Organization and Design.

3.1.1. Learning Experiences and Education

The results for the Learning Experiences and Education category (Figure 1) show that the Cartagena hackathon received the highest average rating of 4.60 (SD = 0.65). DigiEduHack followed with a score of 4.10 (SD = 0.83), suggesting a similarly positive learning experience. The Chania hackathon, with a score of 3.66 (SD = 1.25), reflects moderate learning experiences. Porto Alegre received the lowest score of 2.72 (SD = 0.96), suggesting that opportunities to strengthen the learning components of that event should have been considered. The questions related to the participants’ learning outcomes, which provide insights into how participants assessed the educational value and applicability of the hackathon activities to their academic training, can be found in Appendix A (

Table A1. Survey questions on learning outcomes.

Hackathon Event	Question(s)
Hackathon 1— Chania, Greece	-Was the available online material sufficient?
Hackathon 2— Cartagena, Colombia	-Do you consider that you achieved the learning objectives proposed at the beginning of the program? -Was the content relevant and useful to your academic training?
Hackathon 3— Porto Alegre, Brazil	-Did you achieve the objectives you wanted, and which were proposed in the MIP? -The activities offered at Marathon 2024 contributed to the development of my project -The topic addressed at the “Resilient Porto Alegre” International Meeting of the People was relevant and connected with my values, contributing to my education
Hackathon 4— International, DigiEduHack	-Was the available online material sufficient?

). Except for Cartagena, all hackathons showed relatively high variability in responses, indicating diverse experiences.

3.1.2. Team Communication and Collaboration

Figure 2 illustrates the average scores for Team Communication and Collaboration across the four hackathon events. Cartagena received the highest average score (4.38, SD = 1.19), reflecting strong participant satisfaction with virtual interaction and team collaboration. DigiEduHack had the second-highest score (4.25, SD = 0.83), indicating it also performed well in this dimension. Porto Alegre scored moderately (2.76, SD = 1.05), while Chania had the lowest rating (2.67, SD = 0.94), suggesting challenges in team formation and communication in this setting. These results provide insight into how effectively participants collaborated across the different hackathon formats and contexts. In Appendix A (

Table A2. Survey questions on team communication and collaboration.

Hackathon Event	Question(s)
Hackathon 1— Chania, Greece	-Did you find the team formation procedure adequate?
Hackathon 2— Cartagena, Colombia	-Did you feel like you had enough opportunities to interact with your teammates virtually?
Hackathon 3— Porto Alegre, Brazil	-The Marathon provided me with an interdisciplinary experience, as it was possible to have contact with other areas of knowledge
Hackathon 4— International, DigiEduHack	-Did you find the team formation procedure adequate?

), we focus on the questions on team dynamics and communication, including virtual interaction opportunities, team formation, and the interdisciplinary experience during the hackathon. The relatively high standard deviations, especially in Cartagena, suggest that while many participants rated team communication and collaboration highly, a notable portion had fewer positive experiences.

3.1.3. Hackathon Organization and Design

Figure 3 presents the average scores for Hackathon Organization and Design across the four events. Cartagena led with a score of 4.82 (SD = 0.38), indicating exceptionally high satisfaction with the overall experience and event structure. DigiEduHack followed closely with a strong average score of 4.23 (SD = 0.86), reflecting well-organized mentorship and clear judging criteria. Chania received a moderate score of 3.50 (SD = 1.26), while Porto Alegre had the lowest average at 2.81 (SD = 1.06), suggesting synchronous hybrid events are more challenging both for organizers and participants. The results highlight how organizational design impacted participant satisfaction across the different hackathon setups. Questions evaluating the structure and organization of the hackathons, including clarity of objectives, judging criteria, mentorship, and overall event format, are presented in Appendix A (

Table A3. Survey questions on hackathon Organization and Design.

Hackathon Event	Question(s)
Hackathon 1— Chania, Greece	-Were the hackathon objectives clear? -Were the evaluation criteria clear?
Hackathon 2— Cartagena, Colombia	-How would you rate this experience overall?
Hackathon 3— Porto Alegre, Brazil	-In terms of the general organization, the event was…
Hackathon 4— International, DigiEduHack	-Were you satisfied with the hackathon experience? -Were you satisfied with the hackathon mentorship? -Judging criteria were clear?

). The low standard deviation in Cartagena indicates a strong agreement among participants that the organization was effective, while higher deviations in other hackathons reflect more varied experiences and perceptions of the event structure.

3.2. Qualitative Results

The qualitative feedback collected from participants across the four INVITE hackathon setups sheds light on the strengths of each event and the areas where improvements are needed. Overall, all hackathon experiences were perceived by participants as enriching and educational, fostering cultural exchange, collaboration, and personal growth. However, some challenges were mentioned, including issues with hackathon logistics, time management, evaluation methods, and efficient communication. The main areas of improvement reported by participants for each event are reported below.

3.2.1. Participants’ Feedback from Hackathon 1 (Chania, Greece)

The feedback received from participants in the hackathon in Chania mostly focused on team dynamics, with one of the participants stating, “Team formation should be improved to be more transparent and enhanced”. This comment highlights the need for clearer team formation processes and strategies in the early phases of team development.

3.2.2. Participants’ Feedback from Hackathon 2 (Cartagena, Colombia)

Participants in the Cartagena hackathon highlighted some practical challenges they experienced. Several struggled with time constraints, with one participant’s team reporting, “We ran out of time to fully demonstrate the intention of the idea and better develop the business model”. Teamwork with international peers created hurdles, such as “Intercultural communication” and hardships on “Being able to agree on ideas and reconcile them”. Nevertheless, the cross-country interaction enhanced participants’ perceptions, with some of them reporting “I am surprised to know that other countries have the same problems as mine” and “It was interesting to learn about environmental management and environmental culture in other countries”. Furthermore, participants gained diverse skills with some indicative comments being “I learned about digital tools, group work, and entrepreneurship” and “It helped me lay the groundwork for the project we would undertake”. One person also shared, “I am more prepared than I thought to start my own business”.

3.2.3. Participants’ Feedback from Hackathon 3 (Porto Alegre, Brazil)

The Porto Alegre hackathon was especially appreciated for its cultural and intellectual exchange components. Participants emphasized the value of working with international peers, reporting satisfaction about “Sharing different ways of thinking and solving problems from different angles” and feeling appreciated by other team members, recognizing “The patience they showed, as I was the only international student”. Yet, logistical challenges were common, including time-zone differences and asynchronous communication with participants reporting “The working hours were different and sometimes we couldn’t contact them all”. Despite these challenges, participants mentioned satisfaction from learning about “collaboration, resilience, teamwork” and “leadership, assertive communication, and coordination”. Suggestions for improvement centered on providing participants more time and avoiding schedule clashes with comments suggesting “It would be good to extend the time for the final project” and “The days were challenging because sometimes they overlapped with classes”.

3.2.4. Participants’ Feedback from Hackathon 4 (International, DigiEduHack)

At our international INVITE hackathon (hosted also in DigiEduHack), participants generally felt the event was well-executed. One participant shared, “The hackathon went smoothly. My only remark is that I couldn’t join the award ceremony, so I had one of my colleagues share their screen with me on another app”. Still, there were some suggestions for improvement. Notably, concerns were raised about the fairness of the evaluation system: “Not a big fan of the “likes” system (participants evaluated other teams through likes under each pitch deck video). It creates conflict of interest where you reward the other team at the expense of your own”. Participants also suggested adding a demo stage and giving credit for progress throughout the project, with one participant reporting, “Maybe the Canva should be taken into consideration or points given for submitting different stages of the project”. Time management was another concern, with a participant suggesting, “It would be good to give more time”.

Overall, the reported feedback across the four hackathon setups highlighted important key messages. Event logistics and technical barriers were frequent, with issues such as technical access to sessions and overlapping activities, especially when participants also had other academic commitments. Additionally, project evaluation systems received criticism, particularly the “like” system, with calls for more structured, stage-based assessments. Cultural exchange and teamwork were valued, though challenges like language barriers and time-zone differences impacted effective collaboration. Time constraints were a recurring issue, with participants wishing for more time to refine ideas and project solutions. On the other hand, many participants reported personal and professional skills development in regard to communication, leadership, and entrepreneurship. Participants also gained increased environmental awareness since all hackathon topics were related to sustainable development and noted similarities and differences in how countries address these issues, enhancing awareness, empathy, and broadening their perspectives.

Summarizing, participants’ suggestions for improvement included extending event duration, adjusting schedules to participants’ other commitments, and refining evaluation systems to reflect participant contributions more accurately. Furthermore, participant feedback revealed that while technical limitations and organizational factors sometimes hindered the hackathon experience, the overall impact of these events was highly positive. Participants built new skills and confidence, broadened their cultural perspectives, and found common ground with peers from different regions and countries. Future hackathon initiatives can build on this momentum by better addressing logistical issues, enhancing team building and collaboration, and securing transparent evaluation processes.

4. Discussion

The outcomes observed upon comparing the four hackathon setups provide valuable insights that lead to several key takeaways and recommendations for future improvement. Initially, hackathon events that follow a format closer to BIP (characterized by multiple structured learning sessions and extended time for task completion) tend to yield more effective learning outcomes. The additional time and focus on learning enhance participants’ understanding and retention of knowledge. Furthermore, blended events, which combine online and in-person components, improve team communication and collaboration. Allowing participants to meet and interact virtually before gathering in person helps build familiarity and rapport among team members. This initial online engagement lays a strong foundation for more effective cooperation once the project work begins.

Our experience from designing and implementing four hackathon events is that organizing a successful hackathon requires time, good role assignments, and preparation. Selecting the topic to fit the participants’ interests and thoroughly analyzing the targeted group profile (participants’ demographics, what they are, what they like, etc.) should be used to guide the design and development of tasks, activities, materials, and challenges for the hackathon. This will significantly enhance the smooth implementation and run time of the event. Furthermore, it is crucial to communicate and remind participants of the important links and dates. During the event, a support team should be available to resolve any problems that may arise.

Feedback on the organization and design of hackathons is necessary to help optimize any future initiatives, and our survey results suggest that participants are generally comfortable with both blended and complete virtual hackathon formats. In particular, virtual events can offer a highly satisfactory experience when organizers maintain regular communication, such as through notifications, and provide adequate and accessible support channels throughout the event. As regards the tools and platforms employed during the hackathons, they did not significantly complicate the overall experience, indicating that participants were generally able to adapt to the platforms provided without difficulty or technical issues.

In general, from an organizational point of view, all hackathon formats require essential time, significant efforts, and ongoing support that must be provided by different roles and organizations: universities, networks, networks, academics, logistics, international offices, educational developers, companies, and entrepreneurship/agile methodologies experts who can act as mentors or jurors. Some important insights gained from each event are briefly discussed below.

The experience from the onsite hackathon held in Chania highlights several important organizational considerations that should be addressed in future hackathon initiatives. Firstly, effective pre-event communication is essential to ensure that participants are well-informed and prepared. Secondly, continuous onsite support must be available throughout the event to assist participants. A notable observed challenge was the decision to allow participants to form their teams onsite, especially when many did not know each other beforehand. This approach often led to discomfort and decreased motivation to participate. To address this, it is recommended that individuals without pre-established teams be allowed to register independently. Organizers should then assign these individuals to teams and facilitate team-building activities before the start of the event to foster a sense of connection and collaboration. Furthermore, the specific hackathon was part of another scientific event with multiple sessions to attend, leaving participants with limited time to prepare their hackathon project.

At the Cartagena hackathon, participants asked for more flexibility in the agenda and more social spaces to interact with peers, especially as international students moved to Cartagena for one week. At the same time, it was observed that presentations and core training were successfully implemented during the virtual phase of the hackathon. This facilitated students who landed in the face-to-face phase with prior online training on agile methodologies, and content addressing relevant topics, which allowed teams to be better prepared for the onsite hackathon event. Additionally, the virtual phase was crucial for laying the foundations for cross-cultural collaboration, building trust and communication, and helping students overcome their lack of teamwork skills to think and develop solutions within a short period.

Porto Alegre was the only completely synchronous, hybrid hackathon event, which made it more challenging for the hosts to offer a balanced experience for both online and onsite students who participated synchronously in the event. Participants recommended adjusting the events’ timeline because the intensive schedule made it difficult for online students to follow the entire process and activities. However, the interdisciplinary composition of the teams significantly enhanced the quality of the final projects. This was highly appreciated and highlighted by the jurors and mentors on the final presentation session of the hackathon. Furthermore, the participation of non-academic actors, such as businesspeople and entrepreneurs, enhanced the quality of insights for addressing the proposed challenges. Finally, the fact that the hackathon addressed city challenges, aiming to benefit the welfare of communities, was perceived as a significant lever for all stakeholders involved.

In the international hackathon (hosted also as part of the DigiEduHack 2024), self-formed teams were almost filled with participants, not leaving room for extra individuals to join, while only two teams were formed by the host (those teams collaborated successfully, but faced some difficulties in communicating, meeting hours, etc.). The duration of the hackathon was mentioned as a weakness of the event, as participants felt the time was limited for preparing a project that required multiple parameters to be addressed. However, it was acknowledged that mentors played a crucial role in helping teams to successfully complete the project as they offered constant critical insights and directions. A major concern reported by the participants was the feeling that the 30% of the final evaluation grade awarded by other “competitive” teams was high and that the jurors’ vote should have counted for more than 70%. Participants also suggested that the hackathon could have incorporated additional scoring activities throughout the event, allowing teams to earn points through various challenges rather than only from the final project submission. Overall, participants felt satisfied, and that the hackathon experience expanded their perspective when they tried to approach and solve a problem.

Comparing our results to the previous research on best practices for hackathon organization to identify similarities, differences, and potential areas for improvement, one of the most critical factors for a successful hackathon is implementing an efficient and effective team formation process. Indeed, from our experience, teams that can collaborate effectively and communicate efficiently produce better final results and present increased overall satisfaction. A general observation from our findings was that self-formulated teams and especially teams including participants with a diverse skill set significantly boosted the quality and stability of creative ideas and innovative solutions. However, when the team formation was conducted by the organizers (e.g., Hackathon 4), several actions were undertaken to increase team cohesion and promote motivation and collaboration. Initially, team formation followed a structured process that used questionnaires to gather information on participants’ profiles and preferences to assist organizers in forming balanced teams. During team formation, organizers created teams based on shared passions to increase motivation but also promoted cross-disciplinary collaboration to foster comprehensive problem-solving and innovative solutions production. Furthermore, pre-event networking was initiated via a meeting where all stakeholders (organizers, mentors, participants, and jurors) could share ideas to align visions and reduce mismatched expectations. However, further steps could have been taken, such as pre-hackathon team meetups (e.g., speed-dating-style meetings), to identify complementary skills and interests among the team members and foster team building and interpersonal connection so teams can work more cohesively, unlocking collective creativity and driving innovative solutions.

The literature underlines the importance of hackathon organizers to predefine how teams will be structured [11] and recommends informing participants about the team composition approach in advance to allow them to prepare accordingly [12]. Generally, the literature supports the idea that self-formed teams showcase better team collaboration yet lack creativity, as such teams usually consist of members from the same field [13]. On the other hand, teams formed by hackathon organizers are more professionally diverse, resulting in more ingenious ideas and projects [14]. Some important parameters that should be considered during designing the team formation process that the hackathon will follow include considering the venue of the event, the hackathon format, the different skills needed by team members, and the ideal team size [15,16,17]. A size of three-to-six participants per team is usually recommended based on the previous studies, so that each member has sufficient influence within the team, while at the same time, the learning experience level remains significant [17,18].

Another important factor that emerged from our findings was choosing the optimal duration for a hackathon event. It is a fact that from their origins as coding competitions, hackathons were perceived as intensive, time-bounded events that lasted no more than 2 days [19]. However, nowadays it is increasingly frequent for hackathons to follow a format that extends the traditional duration of 24–48 h [20]. This is probably observed since hackathons have evolved from mere coding events to events where fully developed projects and solutions are required, including the need to adopt innovative, sustainable business models and utilizing cutting-edge technologies [2]. Indeed, in hackathons where more complicated final solutions are produced, an extended duration can allow teams to adequately develop their ideas, elaborate the solutions more thoroughly in the presentations/pitches, and engage closely with stakeholders (other teams, mentors, jurors, etc.) [21]. On the other hand, a hackathon event up to 48 h is perceived as sufficient to produce simpler or non-multidimensional solutions, enabling participants sufficient time to develop their solutions, while also leaving time to rest [22]. From our experience, organizers of the hackathon events should seek the perfect balance between the requirements of the requested projects and the optimal hackathon duration. When organizing limited frame hackathons for higher educational institutions, we think it is good advice to schedule them during weekends. Furthermore, our experience showed that hosting a hackathon event within another scientific gathering (e.g., conference and forum) offers the opportunity to attract more participants and with a more diverse background (cultural, scientific, etc.); nevertheless, one should ensure that an adequate number of hackathon sessions, which do not overlap with other scientific activities, are reserved.

In addition, mentoring has to be carefully coordinated during the event, and inviting a diverse pool of mentor experts is highly recommended to achieve optimal outcomes [23,24]. Indeed, the literature supports the idea that inviting high-profile mentors can influence participation by enhancing motivations and overall satisfaction [25]. However, mentors from different fields can apply very different coaching approaches [26]; therefore, while their importance is highly acknowledged by scholars, their potential effects on hackathon outcomes must be further addressed by the future research [6]. In addition, our hackathons’ findings indicate that when the mentors’ profiles did not match the participants’ profiles (academic background and scientific disciplines), brainstorming processes tended to foster more holistic thinking and generated more innovative solutions. Consequently, carefully analyzing participants’ group compositions and strategically assigning mentors with complementary or varied expertise to each team may be a critical factor in enhancing both the quality and originality of the produced solutions. Implementing targeted mentor–participant-matching processes could serve as an effective approach to optimize hackathon performance and foster higher levels of innovation. Furthermore, it goes without saying that the involvement of well-known and established jurors in the evaluation panel (such as innovation experts from the industry and academia) can raise a hackathon event above the ordinary.

In the present study, hackathons were selected as the primary pedagogical approach due to their inherently experiential and collaborative nature, which fosters rapid innovation particularly suited for developing digital and blended education competencies within limited timeframes. Unlike other educational initiatives, such as the experiential educational method Service Learning (SL), which emphasizes in students sustained community engagement and reflection over extended periods [27], hackathons offer an intensive, time-limited frame that encourages immediate application of skills, creativity, and teamwork. This made them highly tailored for the objectives of the Erasmus+ project “INVITE” that aimed to quickly generate and evaluate innovative educational solutions within a limited project duration. More specifically, the hackathons’ agility and focus on rapid implementation and validation, along with innovative applications, aligned with the project’s need to produce tangible results and insights efficiently providing a distinctive pedagogical value in the context of digital and blended international education.

More specifically, compared to Service Learning, hackathons were chosen as they offer unique advantages, including (1) intensive experience: hackathons are focused, time-bound events, promoting rapid ideation, development, and iteration. This immersive nature encourages deep engagement and hands-on learning, which can be more immediate and tangible than the extended timelines of SL projects. (2) Emphasis on innovation and creativity: hackathons are innovation-driven educational events that prioritize creative problem-solving and technical skills, aligning with pedagogical objectives that aim to develop students’ entrepreneurial and digital competencies. On the other hand, SL centers on community service and reflection. (3) Rapid feedback and iteration: the time-constrained format facilitates quick feedback cycles, enabling students to refine their solutions rapidly. This dynamic environment contrasts with the more reflective, slower-paced processes characteristic of SL. (4) Alignment with contemporary industry practices: hackathons mirror real-world industry scenarios, where rapid prototyping and agile development are standard, thus providing students with relevant, practical experiences that complement traditional pedagogies, in comparison to SL that mainly focuses on fostering students’ civic awareness and ethical development [28].

Finally, another essential aspect of hackathons, which was also a focus point of the INVITE project, was the employment of powerful tools and the integration of technology to facilitate the successful execution of such events. Especially in virtual and hybrid/blended hackathon modes, technology can play a significant role in increasing innovation, fostering international collaborations, and enhancing the overall impacts of hackathon competitions. Digital technologies, including various tools, such as communication platforms, cloud-based technologies, and project management apps, can enable seamless communication, collaboration, and resource sharing, breaking down geographic and organizational barriers, facilitating optimal hackathon outcomes [29]. To this point, the INVITE project developed its own Open Interactive Digital Ecosystem, which was tested within two of the events with very positive and encouraging feedback from the participants. This platform offers several tools that facilitate communication, collaboration, resource sharing, and project management, which were designed specifically for hackathons to serve their dynamic, collaborative nature. Of course, it is suggested that when providing such tools, participants should be provided with a brief guide on how to navigate the specific virtual platform and specify which tool must be used for each purpose [12]. The architecture, besides the INVITE digital platform, encompassing the technical modules developed, the guidelines formulated, and the user feedback collected, will be detailed in a separate forthcoming publication.

Limitations

The major limitation of this study was the absence of a standardized, homogeneous questionnaire administered across all participant groups. The use of differing questionnaires may have introduced variability in the types of questions posed, which can compromise the comparability of the data collected. Consequently, this lack of uniformity is making direct comparisons across different hackathon groups more challenging. To address this challenge, we endeavored to mitigate its impact by grouping similar or related questions across the different surveys into coherent question categories. This approach aimed to facilitate realistic and meaningful comparisons between the participant groups. Future similar comparison studies should consider employing a standardized questionnaire to ensure uniformity in data collection, enhancing the validity and comparability of the results. Furthermore, another limitation of this study is that the survey among Porto Alegre hackathon participants was distributed only to the enrolled international students, and therefore locals’ participants’ opinions (which represented the bigger group) were not represented, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Finally, this study converted a 4-point Likert scale into a 5-point scale—a premise that may not accurately reflect respondents’ perceptions, given the ordinal nature of the Likert data. Consequently, this transformation could have slightly impacted on the interpretability of the aggregated scores.

5. Conclusions

Incorporating hackathon events into university life is a promising way to foster creativity, entrepreneurship, and collaboration among students, reshaping the future of higher education internationally. The academic community is encouraged to experiment with this emerging educational approach since there is no one-way road in designing successful and impactful hackathon events. This study provides a comprehensive comparison of various hackathon setups, highlighting their respective strengths and limitations and providing useful key insights. This study’s findings indicate that the optimal hackathon setup depends on its specific objectives, participant profiles, and available infrastructures. By understanding these dynamics, hackathon organizers can tailor their events to maximize effectiveness and achieve desired outcomes, whether that be fostering innovation, building international collaborations, or solving complex challenges. Future research could explore the long-term impacts of different hackathon formats and their influence on participants’ skills, learning outcomes, and overall satisfaction.