Hackathons as Extracurricular Activities: Unraveling the Motivational Orientation Behind Student Participation

Introduction

An extracurricular activity (henceforth abbreviated as ECA) is a critical segment of the education landscape. Depicted as an adjunct to the primary curricula, the appreciation of its vital role stems from the positive relationships between activity participation (i.e., school-based ECAs engaged in by students) and cognitive, psychological, and social outcomes (Crosnoe et al., 2015; Fredricks & Eccles, 2010; Stuart et al., 2011). In particular, several studies suggest that ECA participation is associated with a stronger sense of school belonging (Ivaniushina & Aleksandrov, 2015), better character development (Solfema et al., 2019), more social and human capital (Feldman & Matjasko, 2005), superior academic performance (Chan, 2016), a higher likelihood of attending college (Morris, 2016), and increased employability chances (Thompson et al., 2013). ECA examples include running for student government, competing in athletics, joining academic organizations, and participating in hackathons. Among the forenamed instances, hackathon participation is the most recent addition to the growing inventory of ECAs.

Hackathon (a portmanteau of “hack” and “marathon”) is an intensive, time-bound event where participants in multidisciplinary teams collaborate and develop innovative solutions to real-world problems. In their book, Kohne and Wehmeier, (2020) narrated the origin of hackathons as pure software development meetings for developers to create software on their respective platforms. Since then, it has evolved into several forms, and various organizations host hackathons for different reasons: technology companies to promote their products, governments to build technologies for social good, institutions to accelerate scientific discoveries, and schools to empower their students (Ghouila et al., 2018; Kvamsås et al., 2021; Leemet et al., 2021; Warner & Guo, 2017). As it originated outside academia, research is still scarce on hosting hackathons within the education field. In addition, most studies concentrated on engineering, computer science, and allied disciplines where innovation is a core mechanism of development. For instance, Porras et al., (2018) concluded from a decade of events in software engineering education that hackathons fulfill the needs of students (e.g., acquire hard and soft skills), capstone projects (e.g., foster collaborative work), and society (e.g., solve real problems). These needs are collectively exhibited in a recent study by Pakpour et al., (2022), which examined hackathon events to highlight the important role of computer scientists and engineers in controlling disease outbreaks. In emulating a real-life workplace and challenges, students perceived the hackathon environment to be more authentic than university classes (Warner & Guo, 2017).

Despite the potential of hackathons for educational transformation, why students intend to or continuously participate remains unexplored. Understanding this phenomenon will help devise appropriate institutional schemes necessary to encourage more hackathon participation. Building on this research gap, the purpose of this study was to examine the motivational orientation behind student participation in hackathons. Although not in the context of hackathons but ECAs, researchers such as Dang and Nguyen Viet, (2021) and Liu, (2020) launched similar investigations grounded in various theories. However, there is still a lack of understanding on whether student participation is likewise driven by motivational factors. Saeed and Zyngier, (2012) framed motivation as a prerequisite of student engagement not only in learning but also in the processes (e.g., any activity to achieve sound academic outcomes) by which it is acquired. More importantly, motivation is among the most powerful determinants of students’ success or failure in school (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). Thus, this study employed the framework provided by self-determination theory (SDT) to explore the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in encouraging hackathon participation. The succeeding parts of the study discuss the theoretical underpinning, research model and hypotheses development, methodology, discussion of the findings, and the implications, recommendations, and conclusion.

Background

Life Outside the Classroom

The world is constantly evolving, and it has been increasingly recognized that formal education alone is insufficient (UNESCO, 2020). For students to thrive in the digital age, the school climate must be supportive of activities that promote exposure to realities and are conducive to experimenting with disruptive ideas. Following the notion of “whole-person education” (i.e., a school experience is not limited to academic undertaking), students should be exhorted to explore life beyond the classroom walls and acquire skills not directly taught in the traditional curriculum (Kim et al., 2021; Margaret Podger et al., 2010). Lipscomb, (2007) asserted that many of the character-building skills needed in the workplace are attainable through ECAs. This assertion is further corroborated by employers who underscore ECAs as instrumental in exemplifying skills and competencies transferable to the workplace (Stuart et al., 2011). Thus, schools are constantly looking for new ECAs not only to upgrade their education models but also to help their students succeed academically and developmentally.

Hackathons as Extracurricular Activities

With hackathons primitively intended for and attended by software developers, it is unsurprising that most prior studies have focused on events organized by governments, nonprofits, and corporations rather than those by and for education institutions (Warner & Guo, 2017). Much like design thinking methodologies (Revano & Garcia, 2020), hackathons have made their way into education to encourage curiosity and innovation beyond the classroom and into the world (Steglich et al., 2021; Yarmohammadian et al., 2021). In addition to design thinking, hackathons pose similarities with cooperative learning, project-based learning, and inquiry-based learning when viewed as a pedagogy. Kohne and Wehmeier, (2020) provided a detailed account of hackathons as a campus event of a university. In their book, they posited the importance of paying close attention to students and their backgrounds, such as age, education, seniority, and motivation. Contrary to its origin, a hackathon yields promising results when groups are made up of students with different disciplines and backgrounds. In principle, any motivated, creative, and idealistic students (rather than solely coding connoisseurs or engineers) are welcome to participate, although it still largely depends on the event objectives and its expected results (e.g., prototype or working products). Thus, the context of a hackathon in this study is not limited to coding-based events. Regardless of their characteristics, it is still unknown what motivates students to participate in hackathons. Although there is a study that identified what motivates ECA participation (Dang & Nguyen Viet, 2021), motivating factors were not given a priority.

The Self-Determination Theory

The SDT is one of the core psychological theories on motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). It describes the innate psychological needs of people to thrive, such as autonomy or the need to feel in control of one’s behavior; competence or the need to gain mastery; and relatedness or the need to experience a sense of belonging. The nature of hackathons reflects these needs by allowing students to work together (relatedness), have creative freedom in solving problems without faculty supervision (autonomy), and build their skills in the process (competence). In educational research, motivation is a prerequisite and necessary element for student engagement in learning and activities (e.g., ECAs) that can lead to improved academic outcomes (Saeed & Zyngier, 2012; Vu et al., 2022). Initially, motivation was regarded as a single concept, but SDT differentiates individual motivation into two types: intrinsic and extrinsic. In essence, the main difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is that the former involves engaging in an activity for the sake of doing it (e.g., satisfaction) while the latter involves external rewards (e.g., tangible incentives). The implications of both these motivation types in education have been profound (Ryan & Deci, 2020; Zaccone & Pedrini, 2019), which is why it is important to determine whether hackathon participation is driven by these factors.

Research Model and Hypotheses Development

Previous research on ECA participation used various theoretical lenses to form and embody their analyses. Cortellazzo et al., (2021) adopted experiential learning theory (Kolb, 2015) to empirically disentangle the connection between ECAs (cultural activities, sport, volunteering, experience abroad) and emotional and social competencies. Griffiths et al., (2021) conducted a similar study but grounded the investigation on self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997) and self-concepts of student self-efficacy. Both studies have successfully established the positive relationship between ECA participation and student educational success. Shaffer, (2019) posited that participation in an ECA is also a predictor of student motivation. However, while ECAs influence student motivation, what motivates students to participate in ECAs remains unclear. Conversely, Dang and Nguyen Viet, (2021) looked at the antecedents by combining the theories of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) and signaling (Spence, 2002). This study used demographic, information quality, capability, and motivation (i.e., attitude and subjective norm) factors to determine what influences students to participate in ECAs. While these prior works indicate transferable similarities between ECAs and hackathons, there is still a lack of understanding on whether student participation is likewise driven by intrinsic or extrinsic motivations. Thus, instead of replicating the studies in the hackathon context using the same theories, the present study selected the SDT approach to focus on the motivational factors.

SDT research commenced with an emphasis on intrinsic motivation — a prototypical manifestation of active human tendencies. Deci and Ryan, (1985) posited that intrinsically motivated people freely engage in an activity for the inherent satisfaction and pleasure derived from the process. By doing so, they experience enjoyment and interest and feel self-determining and competent (Ryan & Deci, 2020). For instance, when intrinsically motivated students participate in hackathons, they do so not because of the potential rewards (e.g., prize money) but because they are interested in the events. This established association of intrinsic motivation with the mood of pleasure institutes a personal long-lasting commitment thereby permitting an adequate performance (Cerasoli & Ford, 2014). As intrinsic needs, self-determination and competence inevitably lead people in endless cycles of pursuing and conquering challenges (e.g., hackathons). Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1. Intrinsic motivations are positively associated with participation intention in hackathons.

H2. Intrinsic motivations are positively associated with continuance participation in hackathons.

Often contrasted with intrinsic motivation is the behavior of undertaking activities for reasons separate from the activity itself (i.e., extrinsic motivation). According to Deci and Ryan, (1985), a person who is extrinsically motivated is generally focused on the expected results. Thus, when extrinsically motivated students participate in hackathons, they do so because they are aiming for external awards, such as improving their reputation to find a better job in the future. The study of Lepper et al., (2005) in traditional education contexts has shown that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can and do coexist. This prospect indicates that students may seek out activities that they find inherently pleasurable while simultaneously paying attention to their extrinsic consequences. Thus, the following hypotheses are likewise proposed:

H3. Extrinsic motivations are positively associated with participation intention in hackathons.

H4. Extrinsic motivations are positively associated with continuance participation in hackathons.

In this study, the dependent variables (i.e., participation intention and continuance participation) aim to distinguish the factors affecting hackathon participation between students with and without experience. The research model is presented in Figure 1.

Methodology

Measurement Development

Drawing from the existing literature, the constructs were formulated based on the concepts and findings presented in studies related to ECAs, hackathons, motivation, and educational research in general. As shown in Table 1, the constructs selected to measure intrinsic motivations were practical experience (Miller & Brickman, 2004), social connection (Al-Ansari et al., 2016), vocational skills (Lipscomb, 2007), and challenge demand (Lepper et al., 2005). Meanwhile, the constructs selected to measure extrinsic motivations were competition prize (Sternberg & Baalsrud-Hauge, 2015), additional credit (Groves, 2000), career opportunities (Thompson et al., 2013), and personal reputation (Urip & Kurniawati, 2020). The items per each construct were either extracted from or formulated based on the forenamed literature. All items were measured on a five-point Likert scale with anchors from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). After formulating the initial questionnaire, its characteristics (e.g., format, completeness, and readability) were scrutinized using the expert judgment approach. The questionnaire was then revised accordingly. Before data collection, the revised questionnaire was subjected to a pilot test with 50 students at a large university to ensure its reliability and validity. The Cronbach’s alpha was computed for each construct, and the results show all values were above the cutoff point (α > 0.7), which indicates an internally consistent questionnaire.

Procedure and Sample

The final validated questionnaire was disseminated online via academic (e.g., learning management system) and social media channels (e.g., Facebook, Reddit, and LinkedIn) in January 2022. All students are eligible to participate in the survey to embody the vast implications of ECAs and break the common misconception that hackathons are exclusive to coding-based events. Steered by an assumption that most students have not yet attended a hackathon event, a separate invitation was dispatched to universities known for their active involvement in this kind of event. This tactic was to gather enough responses to measure the continuance participation variable. The assistance of teachers was crucial in this process because they pinpointed students with hackathon experience. As the present study concentrates on students with and without hackathon experience, an upfront question was set to identify which questionnaire and dependent variable (i.e., participation intention or continuance participation) will be displayed. Thus, there are two questionnaire versions with different item wordings. Appendix A shows the version for the continuance participation, and the items for the participation intention were included to showcase all statements on one page. The survey items were also randomized to decrease common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Overall, 437 students from 12 countries participated in the survey, of whom most were from the Philippines (n = 174, 39.8%), Egypt (n = 82, 18.8%), and India (n = 59, 13.5%). The majority of students were male (n = 254, 58.1%) with a mean age of 19.54 ± 1.4 years, and sophomore (n = 143, 32.7%) in a public university (n = 234, 53.5%). Of the sample, 259 students (59.3%) indicated that they had not yet tried to participate in a hackathon although 296 (67.7%) students disclosed that they are familiar with this kind of event. Lastly, there was almost an equal proportion of students from computing (n = 209, 47.8%) and non-computing (n = 228, 52.2%) disciplines. Of the non-computing disciplines, there were 157 engineering students, 45 health students, and 26 business students.

Model and Hypotheses Testing

To test the research model and hypotheses, the component-based partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM; Chin & Newsted, 1999) approach was adopted using SmartPLS 3.3.5 software. As described by Hair et al., (2014), PLS-SEM is a technique following an iterative approach that maximizes the explained variance of endogenous constructs. It was selected because it can process non-continuous variables (Haenlein & Kaplan, 2004) and does not make assumptions about data distribution (Fornell & Bookstein, 1982). In this study, the data is not normally distributed according to Kolmogorov–Smirnov's test. The model was first assessed in terms of reliability and validity, and the results are presented in Table 2.

In PLS-SEM, reliability is tested through composite reliability (CR). According to the results, the CR values ranged from 0.813 to 0.952, all exceeding the acceptable level of 0.70, thus showing good internal consistency. Meanwhile, the convergent validity was measured by examining the average variance extracted (AVE). The AVE values ranged from 0.542 to 0.794, which was well above the threshold of 0.50. On the other hand, the discriminant validity was calculated by using the Fornell and Larcker, (1981) criterion. The correlations among constructs were all below the square root of AVE (i.e., the diagonal values in italic), indicating compliance with the criterion. The collinearity measurements of tolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF) were also well within recognized parameters (VIF < 5, Tolerance < 0.1; Hair et al., 2011). Thus, multicollinearity is not an issue in this study. To expose a possible non-response bias, the wave analysis was conducted. For this approach, the collected data were divided into two groups (i.e., the early and late respondent datasets) and evaluated using a t-test to determine the difference between the means. There was no significant difference between groups, confirming that non-response bias was not a problem for this study. Finally, the construct correlation matrix was also assessed to determine a common method bias issue. Upon assessment, none of the constructs were correlated above 0.90 indicating that there is no common method variance. Overall, the results of the measurement model (Table 2) warrants further testing of the structural model.

Results and Discussion

Analysis of Demographic Profiles as Control Variables

Prior works have shown that the demographic profile influences students' intention to participate in ECAs (Dang & Nguyen Viet, 2021; Pan et al., 2022). These factors may also affect the interrelationships between the core variables in the hackathon context. Thus, variables including age, gender, education level, type of institution, and hackathon familiarity have been controlled for in the analysis. The findings show that age and education level influence participation intention (β = 0.116, p < 0.046; β = 0.143, p < 0. 038) and continuance participation (β = 0.114, p < 0.043; β = 0.125, p < 0.021). These significant effects indicate that older students with more extensive educational experience may have higher intentions to participate and continue participating in these events. Conversely, gender, institution type, and familiarity do not influence either participation intention or continuance participation in hackathons.

The significant association of age and education level with participation intention and continuance participation in hackathons may have something to do with self-esteem and self-efficacy that students may have developed through the years. Ogihara and Kusumi, (2020) investigated the developmental trajectory of self-esteem over the life course and found that the average level of self-esteem suggests an upward trend as people age. A high level of self-esteem implies students are free of social anxiety (e.g., fear of social situations and lack of self-confidence) that may restrict them from participating in hackathons (Lowe & Harris, 2019). Meanwhile, the correlation between educational experience and self-efficacy can be found in Bandura’s (1997) theory, which postulates mastery experience as the most influential source of efficacy information. In the educational setting, students with high self-efficacy are more likely to accept challenging tasks (e.g., hackathon competitions) than students with low self-efficacy. This is supported by Griffiths et al., (2021), who uncovered the relationship between self-efficacy and ECA participation, and that self-efficacy increases over time. Finally, these findings offer practical insights for the education sector to formulate strategies that may reinforce self-esteem and self-efficacy, especially among younger students. More importantly, the effects should be recognized not only within the classroom walls but even beyond the school gate.

One unconventional finding of this analysis was the insignificant effect of gender. In the ECA context, Dang and Nguyen Viet, (2021) found the opposite: gender has a significant impact on the participation and attitude of students. For instance, girls have a more favorable attitude and stronger intention to partake in extracurricular dance than boys (Anderson et al., 2017). Undoubtedly, the type of ECAs has a moderating role in this example since students naturally prefer the activity compatible with their gender identity (i.e., gender norms) or parallel to the acceptable behavior in society (i.e., social norms). However, hackathons are also vulnerable when peeked through these vantage points because they are often orchestrated as coding-based events. The academic field of computing is a prime example of disparity along gender lines where women have been historically underrepresented. In addition to the gender gap issue, Warner and Guo, (2017) pointed out that hackathons embody a geeky environment that implicitly excludes women. Consequently, a possible explanation why gender was insignificant is that the study was not restricted to coding-based events and computing students.

Analysis of Overall Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations

The results of the hypothesis testing for the analysis of overall intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are summarized in Table 3. A crisscross pattern was evident on the results: intrinsic motivations were statistically significantly associated with participation intention (p = 0.038, H1 supported) but not with continuance participation (p = 0.154, H2 rejected) while extrinsic motivations (p = 0.310, H3 rejected) were not statistically significantly associated with influence participation intention but with continuance participation (p = 0.000, H4 supported). These associations indicate that albeit intrinsic motivation influences initial participation, extrinsic motivation drives subsequent participation. A potential example is that students initially participate in a competition to acquire practical experience but continue to do so to boost their personal reputation. This finding extended the work of Lepper et al., (2005) on the coexistence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations by ascertaining that students may be more intrinsically motivated at first before becoming more extrinsically motivated on succeeding participation. Conversely, this finding is in contrast to the study of Liu, (2020), which identified extrinsic motivation as the most significant determinant of competition participation intention. However, continuance participation was unaccounted for in that study, indicating that prior experience may affect the motivational orientation behind student participation. Nevertheless, this study cannot prove the transition of motivation from intrinsic to extrinsic after initial participation because the data were gathered from two groups of students (with and without hackathon experience) and analyzed separately. It is therefore recommended for future research to conduct a longitudinal study to validate the switching of motivational orientations.

Analysis of Specific Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations

A more detailed analysis of specific intrinsic and extrinsic motivations is presented in Figure 2. The path analyses revealed mixed findings, in the sense that they are only in part in line with the foregoing result (e.g., intrinsic motivation → participation intention). Explicitly, there are specific intrinsic and extrinsic motivation constructs that are positively associated with continuance participation, which parades the coexistence of both motivation types (Lepper et al., 2005). For instance, continuance participation is significantly positively associated with both intrinsic motivations such as social connection (β = 0.293, p < 0.038) and vocational skills (β = 0.152, p < 0.043), and extrinsic motivations such as career opportunities (β = 0.183, p < 0.046) and personal reputation (β = 0.114, p < 0.037). Drawing on the number of significant constructs associated with the dependent variables, it can be inferred that it may take more than intrinsic motivations for students to continue participating in hackathons after their initial experience.

A common denominator among the significant constructs is the predilection towards the employability benefits of hackathon participation. This emerging pattern is supported by prior studies (Roulin & Bangerter, 2013; Stuart et al., 2011; Thompson et al., 2013) that unravel student motives behind ECA participation. The evidence suggests students exploit ECAs to develop their employability narrative and obtain a positional advantage over their competitors. In hackathons, students accumulate practical experience valued in the workplace by formulating different approaches that solve intricate real-life problems. Together with academic credentials, students consider this acquired experience (i.e., hard currencies) as charismatic qualities to present themselves distinctively to employers (Roulin & Bangerter, 2013). The nature of hackathons likewise affords students developmentally appropriate opportunities to earn soft currencies (Feraco et al., 2021; Tanaka & Ito, 2020), including teamwork, problem-solving, time management, and interpersonal skills. Both hard and soft currencies (vocational skills), combined with self (e.g., personality and personal reputation), are packaged as a narrative of employability according to the social construction of personal capital (Brown et al., 2004).

The positive bearing of career opportunities not only reinforces this employability pattern but also insinuates a stronger association of hackathons with business enterprises than education providers. While the former host hackathons to attract new talents, the latter merely send students to represent their institution at these events. This innuendo may indicate that the education sector has not yet fully embraced hackathons as a form of ECAs and that this sprint-like event is still somehow exclusive to the industry where it emanated. From an academic standpoint, this is a missed opportunity to suffuse a mindset of innovation and prepare students for the workforce. More importantly, the familiar presence of corporate sponsorships in company-hosted hackathons is turning the events into full-fledged competitions instead of authentic learning environments (Warner & Guo, 2017). It is therefore paramount that schools also organize in-house hackathons rather than send representatives to competitions hosted by outside organizations. If the involvement of external enterprises is a necessity, a university-industry collaborative approach (e.g., de Macedo Guimarães et al., 2021; Yuen & Wong, 2021) is worth consideration. By arranging regular hackathons either at a school (as an ECA) or classroom (as a pedagogy) level, students can master job-related competencies and characteristics that can put a veneer on their lack of significant work experience (Clark et al., 2015). Although the allure of acclaimed companies offering to fund school-hosted hackathons can be a powerful persuader, as an ECA, it is compulsory to preserve the core values (e.g., informal learning, collaboration, community building) that benefit students and not simply sponsors.

Among the specific motivations, only social connection was positively associated with both participation intention (β = 0.145, p < 0.024) and continuance participation (β = 0.293, p < 0.038). The relevance of social connection as a motivator in hackathon participation may not be surprising as the event is highly social in nature, where participants typically assemble groups of about 2-5 individuals. Students perceive hackathons as a weekend social event where they can hang out with their friends and other like-minded people. This finding reinforces the work of Al-Ansari et al., (2016), where socialization was the most frequently cited motive for ECA participation. By participating in activities together, students have a sense of belonging and a support mechanism to cope with stressful times (Thompson et al., 2013). Regardless, there is a paradox between why students choose and choose not to participate in hackathons. Warner and Guo, (2017) uncovered that novice fear is the primary reason students choose not to participate – something that social connection can alleviate. Garcia, (2021) authenticated the value of social elements by operating cooperative learning in computer programming with novice students who usually experience a fear of coding when alone. In practice, this dichotomy accentuates the implication of building social ties at a classroom level and regularly integrating social interaction elements in the pedagogical techniques of teachers. The formation of these social relationships is not only vital academically, but also in improving one’s quality of life, self-esteem, life satisfaction, and human and societal development (Fung et al., 2022; Garcia et al., 2022).

Implications, Limitations, and Future Directions

From a theoretical standpoint, this study contributes to the scant literature on hackathons in education and advances our cognizance of ECAs. By wearing the lens of SDT, it realizes a holistic model of student participation (both participation intention and continuance participation) in hackathons rooted in motivation factors and ECA research. Consequently, it extended the study of Dang and Nguyen Viet, (2021) by integrating intrinsic and extrinsic motivations as additional antecedents of ECA participation via hackathons as the central point of investigation. While intrinsic motivation influences initial participation, students will continue to partake because of extrinsic motivation. The materialization of this finding is attributed to the inclusion of continuance intention – a construct absent in prior works (e.g., Dang & Nguyen Viet, 2021; Liu, 2020). Nevertheless, whether there is a changeover of motivational orientation (e.g., from intrinsic to extrinsic) in the subsequent involvement is for future studies to find out.

Although a deeper investigation is warranted, the number of associated factors with the dependent variables implies that it may take more than intrinsic motivation for students to continue participating in hackathons after their initial experience. Unlike most ECAs, the attractiveness of hackathon events is ascribed to its primordial form (business-sponsored) and the affixed promising rewards, such as prize money, venture capital, internship, and employment (Kamariotou & Kitsios, 2022; Kohne & Wehmeier, 2020). Paradoxically, the inability of its academic variant to afford all these rewards may impact the continuous engagement of students. The reliance on extrinsic motivation is also deleterious because it neither supports learning nor long-lasting lifetime performance and can lead to obsessive behavior problems, procrastination, and negativism (Clanton Harpine, 2015). This certitude suggests that schools may need to rebrand hackathons as primarily ECAs where internal factors are in the foreground to preclude the ascendancy of extrinsic over intrinsic motivation. According to a 40-year meta-analysis (Cerasoli et al., 2014), extrinsic motivation matters less when intrinsic motivation matters more to performance. Therefore, another managerial implication of this study concerns the exigency of school-wide strategies for fostering intrinsic motivation in students. For courses with laboratory or hands‐on components, intrinsic motivation is important because it shows the highest relationship with academic achievement (Avcı, 2022; Mustafa et al., 2022).

This study likewise deepened its discovery by heeding specific constructs derived from the vast literature of ECAs. Specifying individual motives unlocks a unique line of interpretation that is much deeper than merely scratching the surface of the motivation theory. For instance, the appeal of practical experience as a participation driver regurgitates the unabating challenge of balancing the teaching of foundational theoretical concepts with the pragmatic skills instrumental to one’s future goals. Students discern hackathons as an avenue of worthwhile experience that may not always be accessible in curricular activities. From a methodological point of view, it is apparent to recommend the promotion of hackathons as a core ECA at a school level, and more indispensably, as pedagogy at a classroom level. For instance, teachers may administer mini hackathons inside the classroom where students conceive small open-ended projects aligned with the subject matter. One empirical example is the Engineering Design Days deployed by Christopher et al., (2018) in different undergraduate programs (Mechanical, Electrical, Computer, and Mechatronics Engineering). These in-house engineering hackathon events replaced several traditional class sessions allowing students to collaborate in designing and building solutions to real-life problems. According to Mehta et al., (2022), this implementation of pedagogical hackathons is supported by engineering educators. Not only does it introduce hackathons as more of a learning ecology rather than a business-sponsored competition, but it also diversifies the praxis into other academic programs. With hackathons temporarily disguised as a project-based learning approach, time is afforded to scholastic leaders and researchers to cultivate an inclusive version where students can take part, regardless of age, gender, educational experience, or major.

These implications raise enthralling points on the migration of hackathons in education thus unlocking important research avenues to pursue in the coming years. From the outset, sparking these discussions commences the proliferation of hackathon literature that presently lacks sufficient exploration. First, there should be a consensus on how corporate (e.g., Valença et al., 2019) academic (e.g., Kumalakov et al., 2018), and university-industry (e.g., Yuen & Wong, 2021) hackathons differ in terms of proper implementation and their effectiveness when utilized in an educational context. This differentiation will draw a line between these formats, allowing teachers to choose whether, what, and how to host hackathons. Then, it is crucial to substantiate which positive and negative effects of ECAs are inheritable by hackathons when implemented as such. Isolating these effects is imperative because prior works seldom considered the specific type of ECA in their investigations. With the growing implementation of hackathons in academia, future research should also investigate how they are conducted in different disciplines. For instance, differentiating a healthcare hackathon (Wang et al., 2018) from an engineering hackathon (Christopher et al., 2018) will pinpoint tailored experiences and recommendations. As a pedagogy, it is also beneficial to explore how hackathons influence traditional classroom teaching. Would students experience tension between hackathons and academic work like in other ECAs? How effective would hackathons be if teachers deploy them as a regular learning activity rather than an occasional ECA? With teachers being included in the conversation, examining the factors affecting their intention to host hackathon events is recommended to guarantee coordination between stakeholders. Finally, it is also worth exploring the possibilities of using hackathons in non-computing and non-engineering degrees, especially in programs where innovation should be highlighted as part of the core curriculum. As argued by Falk et al., (2021), carefully designed activities and mechanisms are necessary to encourage broader and more diverse participation. Future works therefore should draft a guideline on transforming hackathons into an ECA that is more inclusive, diverse, and welcoming to everyone.

In addition to these future work suggestions, researchers may likewise address the limitations of the study. First, the cross-sectional nature of this research restricts its ability to demonstrate the changeover from intrinsic to extrinsic motivation after initial participation in hackathon events. Employing a longitudinal research design is recommended to determine whether there is a transition in motivational orientation. Second, the data collection was carried out in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic when students suffered periods of isolation due to lockdown regulations. These social effects experienced by students at the time of the study could have affected their self-reported responses (Garcia & Revano, 2022). Finally, although it is a strength of the study to involve students from different programs because of its anchor to ECA, these students may have different perceptions toward hackathons. For instance, engineering and computing students may have perceived hackathons as an avenue to acquire new or enhance existing skills that are transferrable to the workplace while others are driven by different motivators. Replicating the study at a per program level is therefore recommended.

Conclusion

The education sector is constantly progressing its competency paradigm by establishing nexus between practical, theoretical, and technical dimensions of teaching and learning. This undertaking has initiated continuous curriculum adjustments, introducing new courses and activities relevant to sustainable development. In the modern age of education, hackathons are becoming increasingly prominent in providing an optimal academic environment that allows students to connect what they learned in the classroom to real-life scenarios. Despite the potential for academic transformation, there is still a shortage of research that empirically examines the occupation of hackathons in education. Following the notion that motivation is a prerequisite of student engagement, this study explored the motivational orientation behind student participation in hackathons. According to the findings, although intrinsic motivation influences participation intention, extrinsic motivation drives continuance participation. When specific constructs are analyzed individually, continuance participation demands both motivational orientations. Following the pattern among significant constructs, students exploit hackathons to develop their employability narrative and obtain a positional advantage over their competitors. Comparisons of demographic characteristics indicate that older students with more extensive educational experience may have higher intentions to participate and continue participating in these events. Taking everything into consideration, the findings and implications of the study offer insights into how the education sector can increase hackathon participation by tapping on the motivational orientation of students. In a world where students are encouraged to fail early, fast, and often, participating in hackathons is preparation for eventual success.