Reimagining problem-based learning through hackathon pedagogy

In business education, we often speak about bridging theory and practice. Yet creating genuinely authentic learning environments - where students experience the pressures, ambiguity, and accountability of real decision-making - remains a persistent challenge. In the Digital Marketing module at the Queen Mary University of London, School of Business and Management, I recently experimented with a pedagogical intervention designed to do precisely that: integrating hackathon dynamics into peer-led problem-based learning (PBL).

The result was what I describe as “competitive collaboration” - a structured, industry-facing learning experience that combined teamwork, voluntary participation, authentic assessment, and staged competition.

Moving beyond simulated case discussions

Problem-based learning is well established in business education. However, classroom-based problem scenarios - even when well designed - can sometimes lack urgency. Students know that, ultimately, the “client” is fictional and the risk is limited to grades.

To address this, I invited two external organisations to present live strategic digital marketing challenges to students. These were not hypothetical cases but genuine business problems requiring actionable solutions. Students were informed that participation would be voluntary and formative rather than directly tied to summative assessment. This was intentional: autonomy was central to the design. Those who chose to participate were motivated by challenge rather than compliance. However, they were awarded a certificate of participation.

Students formed self-directed teams and began working on solutions over several weeks. What distinguished this intervention from a typical industry project was the integration of hackathon principles - time-bound development, public pitching, and competitive progression.

Introducing hackathon dynamics

Borrowing from the structure of innovation hackathons, the activity unfolded in two stages.

In Stage One, all participating teams presented their solutions internally. Presentations were evaluated against clear criteria: strategic insight, feasibility, creativity, data use, and implementation clarity. Following this round, four finalist teams progressed to Stage Two.

In the final stage, these shortlisted teams pitched their solutions directly to representatives from the partner organisations. The presence of industry stakeholders transformed the classroom atmosphere. Students demonstrated heightened preparation, sharper articulation, and stronger evidence-based justification of their recommendations.

The competitive element did not diminish collaboration; rather, it amplified it. Within teams, accountability increased. Across teams, informal knowledge-sharing occurred as students observed different approaches to the same problem. The classroom became an ecosystem of peer-led learning.

What changed in student learning?

Several shifts were immediately noticeable.

First, engagement deepened significantly. Because the problems were real and the audience external, students treated the task as professional work rather than academic exercise. The performative dimension of pitching to industry raised standards organically.

Second, peer learning intensified. Students learned not only from their own research but from watching other teams interpret the same brief differently. The comparative dimension fostered critical reflection: Why did one team prioritise data analytics while another emphasised brand storytelling? What differentiated a strong strategic narrative from a tactical list?

Third, professional identity began to emerge. Students spoke of “our client” and “our strategy,” signalling a shift from learner to consultant mindset. This is a subtle but powerful pedagogical transformation.

The power of voluntary participation

An important design choice was keeping the activity voluntary. This created self-selection, resulting in highly motivated teams. Interestingly, this did not create exclusion. Instead, it generated aspiration. Non-participating students attended final presentations out of interest, observing peer performance and reflecting on their own learning.

The competitive structure was not about winning; it was about earning progression. The two-stage model simulated professional filtering processes—shortlisting, pitching, and stakeholder scrutiny - mirroring real-world marketing environments.

Implications for business education

For business schools committed to employability, industry integration must move beyond guest lectures. Students benefit most when they are required to produce rather than simply consume industry insights.

This model offers several advantages:

• it operationalises authentic assessment without overhauling module structures

• it strengthens university–industry relationships in mutually beneficial ways

• it fosters teamwork, resilience, and presentation confidence

• it embeds experiential learning within existing curricula

Importantly, it is scalable. The model can be adapted across disciplines - strategy, entrepreneurship, operations, finance - where real-world challenges can be integrated into structured peer-led competition.

From competition to community

What emerged most clearly was that competition, when thoughtfully designed, can strengthen rather than fragment learning communities. Students collaborated intensely within teams while respecting and learning from competitors. The energy was palpable, the learning visible. Integrating hackathon dynamics into peer-led problem-based learning offers one pathway toward cultivating industry-ready, critically engaged graduates.