Conference Program

Student participation in Erasmus programmes reflects a complex set of motivations that encompass academic, personal, linguistic, socio-cultural, and career-oriented dimensions. Early empirical research grounded in the push–pull framework highlights that mobility decisions are driven by both “push” forces originating in the home environment and “pull” factors associated with host environments (Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002; González et al., 2011; Gutema et al., 2024).

Motivational analyses of Erasmus students have consistently identified academic and professional development as principal drivers of mobility, but even students’ desire for personal growth and intercultural competence emerges as a salient intrinsic incentive (Van Mol and Timmerman, 2014; Lesjak et al., 2015; Cuzzocrea and Krzaklewska, 2023). However, international students’ mobility may be hampered by the presence of barriers that higher educa­tion students face. Therefore, it is important to look at the fears and apprehension of students that retain them in their home country (Souto-Otero et al., 2013).

Distance between home and host countries is considered a key factor influencing the intensity of mobility flows, reflecting transport costs, psychological barriers and cultural affinities (González et al., 2011). In the classical intra-European Erasmus context, shorter geographic distances and cultural proximity have historically facilitated student choices of nearby host countries, reducing logistical and financial frictions associated with mobility. However, as the Erasmus+ KA171 program broaden the range of eligible destinations to include extra-European partners, the geography of student choices becomes more heterogeneous, and a broad strand of literature focused on the factors that prompt students to choose one country and avoid others (Barnett et al. 2016; Kondakci et al. 2018). For Italian students, broader structural changes in travel behaviour, such as the proliferation of low-cost airlines and changing preferences towards global experiential learning, can mitigate the “distance cost” traditionally associated with non-European destinations. Increased exposure to international travel and tourism at a young age may render extra EU destinations more attractive, both for their academic offerings and cultural enrichment potential.

This paper investigates whether, and to what extent, students’ individual characteristics and background factors influence their propensity to apply for Erasmus mobility to Extra-EU destinations, which involves destinations that are geographically and culturally more distant from Italy than those within the European Union, versus EU destinations. The empirical analysis relies on survey data collected by an on-line survey administered to students who apply to international mobility. We collected data on 809 students at a medium size Italian university – the University of Bergamo – that applied for an Erasmus+ or Extra-EU Program in the last two academic years (from 2024/25 to 2025/26 a.y.).

The results, in line with the literature (Souto-Otero et al. 2013; Daly, 2011; Schnepf, 2022), suggest that, ceteris paribus, study experiences in countries outside Europe are primarily driven by strong personal motivations, while they are discouraged by concerns related to academic performance and learning outcomes. However, the findings also suggest that the role of motivations and perceived academic risks in shaping students’ international mobility choices varies substantially across fields of study, gender and family background.

Even though societies are increasingly interconnected and religious and ethnic diversities should be constitutive elements of plural democracies, persistent social representations, stereotypes, and hate speech towards specific ethnic and religious groups continue to fuel specific forms of racism, often resurfacing throughout history. The study of religious pluralism finds in the works of Émile Durkheim, Max Weber, Peter L. Berger, and Niklas Luhmann four fundamental theoretical frameworks for understanding the relationship between religion, society, and education. For Durkheim, religion functions as a source of social cohesion through shared symbolic representations; in pluralistic contexts, however, education can no longer reproduce a single collective conscience, but it must foster integrative values capable of sustaining social solidarity amid diversity. Weber interprets pluralism as a consequence of rationalization and the differentiation of value spheres: education thus becomes a space for cultivating reflexive individuals able to navigate competing worldviews.Berger emphasizes that modernity transforms religion into one option among many within a competitive “market of meanings”: in this context, education plays a crucial role in developing awareness of the socially constructed character of belief systems and encouraging dialogical engagement. Luhmann conceptualizes religion and education as autonomous subsystems within a functionally differentiated society; in this framework religious pluralism is a structural outcome of social complexity and education provides individuals with communicative competencies necessary to manage diversity in systems of meaning. By integrating these perspectives, intercultural and interreligious education emerges not merely as diversity management, but as a formative process that prepares individuals to live in structurally plural societies and share civic values, enabling coexistence across religious differences in contemporary societies.

In the broader context of the Academy's Third Mission and the paths for cross-cutting skills and guidance, the synergy between schools and universities can play a pivotal role in shaping the identities of students and in developing a sense of global citizenship. This paper will analyze two cases studies: the "At School for Dialogue and Peace" project for high school students to provide them with counter-narrative tools against anti-Semitism, anti-Gypsyism, and Islamophobia, by combining a historical exploration of ethnic and religious diversities with immersive experiences such as visits to places of worship, personal accounts of discrimination, and insights on the artistic means employed by second generations to fight prejudices and advocate for religious freedom and recognition of themselves as Italian citizens; opportunities for university students, ordinary citizens, and religious communities to meet and exchange ideas as part of the Third Mission project “Dialogues of Peace.”

This contribution reflects on my experience in the courses “Research Laboratory on Technology and Organization” and “Research Laboratory on Information Systems” within the Master’s program in Organization, Society and Technology at the University of Trento, both structured according to the Challenge Based Learning (CBL) model (Nichols et al., 2016).

The six-month learning process alternated theoretical lectures, hands-on laboratory activities, applied field research, and discussion with peers, teachers and external stakeholders involved in the project. The expected outcome consisted of a final group report integrating the two components of each laboratory: a qualitative research analysis and a project proposal addressing needs identified throughout the research process. In my case, my group focused on a requalification project promoted by the Municipality of Trento concerning the future opening of a youth center. Through qualitative methods, our group explored the complex tangle of desires, guidelines, and needs expressed by the various actors inhabiting the area and its potential future users. The alternation between theoretical inputs and fieldwork fostered continuous negotiation between conceptual frameworks and empirical complexity, in a process that I later recognized as abductive (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). Initial uncertainty and ambiguity in the research process gradually became an integral part of our learning, shaping how we approached challenges and negotiated meaning collectively. My group faced challenges in developing a cohesive working approach. The uneven engagement forced me to reflect on my own role within collaborative research and ultimately viewing these dynamics as an integral part of the learning experience. In this sense, even if the outcome did not fully represent the richness of the work, the experience proved deeply formative at an individual level. Reflexive tools, including individual Learning Agreements, a collective Learning Diary and a personal logbook, supported a continuous reflection during the courses that ended in a final position paper. The combination of qualitative methods and the CBL pedagogical structure created an open learning process that helped me engage with the challenge while fostering reflexive awareness of the research process, shifting attention from the final output to the process itself. Furthermore, tasks were not evaluated through formal grades but through continuous feedback that allowed us to learn from our mistakes and encouraged the growth of tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1966). Rather than seeking a final, static truth, the investigation evolved into an open-ended dialogue among the researcher, the field and the research process. The classroom became a space for negotiating theory and practice within an open and democratic structure that embraced uncertainty, enabling critical reflection, fostering innovative experimentation and engaging with real-world contexts.

“Challenge-Based Learning (CBL) is an important innovation within the field of education that takes learning beyond traditional methods to provide students with authentic challenges and equips them with skills that they will use in their future careers. With its emphasis on critical thinking, collaboration and communication, CBL also provides valuable transversal skills that can be used in a wide range of situations and work settings such as to complement the specific skills and knowledge required to solve a specific challenge” (Dikilitas et al, 2025). Enacting this perspective, this paper reflects on the implementation of CBL within university programs, specifically focusing on blended intensive programs (BIPs) and courses conducted at the School of Innovation (SOI) since 2020. These courses are designed to equip students with transdisciplinary tools to address the European Union’s most pressing challenges—Inclusion, Diversity, and Sustainability—through a proactive, future-oriented approach.

By discussing the social and community impacts of this pedagogical innovation, the authors present outcomes from programs designed to strengthen younger generations' reflection on the community impact of global socio-political transitions. Our core contribution is to propose CBL as a ‘catalyst’ for social innovation, guiding students and teachers toward a resilient approach to current economic and technological transformations. In these innovative programs, educators can teach young people to view the future as a "tool for emancipation" (Appaduraj, 2013) and develop a sense of agency regarding unforeseen alternatives.To develop these anticipatory skills, students must build confidence in their ability to engage with knowledge (Engstrom, 1994) and address the social aspects of learning, such as cooperation and the negotiation of meanings and study practices. Through CBL group practices, students also learn to navigate cultural differences in communication and teamwork, improving their civic attitudes and relational skills.

Furthermore, implementing CBL requires active societal engagement from both students and teachers, demanding a shift in attitude toward knowledge creation processes and circulation. This effort is essential when involving external stakeholders—such as NGOs and local companies— in their projects and is at the heart of effective global collaboration. Ultimately, introducing CBL in university curricula generates impacts that transcend the academic community (Kazemier et al., 2021), fostering a generation of "transdisciplinary social entrepreneurs" capable of navigating complex socio-political crises with empathy and participative agency.

Our contribution explores the experience of two Educational Learning Offers (ELOs) at the School of Innovation (SOI), University of Trento, integrated into the broader offer of the European Consortium of Innovative Universities (ECIU). The ELOs were designed around challenges faced by two startups working with microalgae (microscopic organisms with potential applications in CO₂ capture and the circular economy). While the content was primarily scientific, technological, and economic, our focus here is methodological.

Specifically, we experimented with:

Integrating Challenge-Based Learning (CBL) with futures studies tools, such as the Futures Wheel and the Futures Cone, to provide students with structured approaches for critical thinking and scenario building. Starting from real-world challenges, the goal was to support students in exploring multiple futures, questioning assumptions, and imagining innovative solutions.

Creating a productive tension between divergent and convergent phases: educators encouraged exploration, creativity, and speculative thinking, while external partners (Challenge Providers) guided students toward feasible, actionable outcomes.

Through reflection on the two editions, we identify both the strengths and limitations of this model. We frame it as a form of “queering” educational spaces, in a broad sense: deliberately challenging traditional teaching practices and assumptions.

Ultimately, our contribution demonstrates that the synergy between CBL and futures studies can foster inclusive and transformative learning experiences. Students are empowered to become agents of change, capable of navigating ecological, technological, and social transitions. This model highlights the potential of higher education to equip learners with the knowledge, skills, and imagination necessary to design a more sustainable future.

In recent years, design education has increasingly been confronted with systemic challenges such as climate change, social inequalities, and the transition toward sustainable development models. In this context, higher education institutions are called upon to move beyond predominantly theoretical teaching models and to develop competencies capable of addressing complex and situated problems (Don Norman, 2023). In response to these transformations, pedagogical approaches based on experiential and collaborative learning have gained increasing attention, among which Challenge-Based Learning (CBL). This approach organizes educational pathways around real-world challenges addressed through interdisciplinary processes and in collaboration with external stakeholders. Such pedagogies enable students to apply academic knowledge in real contexts, fostering the development of critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and a greater sense of responsibility toward contemporary socio-environmental challenges (Höffken & Lazendic-Galloway, 2024).

This contribution examines the Roma Design Experience (RDE), developed at ISIA Roma Design since 2018 and now in its eighth edition, as a consolidated model of intensive and collaborative learning based on real-world challenges. The format temporarily reconfigures the traditional learning environment into a five-day laboratory where the challenges addressed focus on crucial issues such as climate change, heritage preservation, accessibility, and sustainability. This space is characterized by a horizontal, peer-to-peer structure in which heterogeneous groups composed of undergraduate and graduate students, faculty members, PhD candidates, tutors, and external stakeholders, including public institutions, third-sector organizations, and local communities, collaborate in defining and addressing real-world challenges.

The paper explores how challenge-based design workshops can function as devices of democratic pedagogy capable of fostering collaboration, critical reflexivity, and forms of student agency. Studies on event-based design education highlight how intensive and collaborative formats can activate situated and interdisciplinary learning processes in design education (Massari et al., 2024). From this perspective, the challenge is not conceived as a predefined brief but as a problematic situation to be collectively explored through practice-based methodologies. The contribution therefore aims to map the development of critical, relational, and socially oriented competencies, while also observing enabling conditions of collaborative learning environments, including inclusivity, quality of facilitation, and psychological safety within the group. Building on observation tools developed within the Rome Design Experience, the research analyzes indicators related to the development of critical thinking, collaborative dynamics, and awareness of the social impact of design projects (Massari et al., 2024; 2025). In order to capture more intangible dimensions of the educational experience, the study introduces the Multimodal Reflective Device (MRD), which integrates micro-narratives and visual languages to support non-linear forms of reflection (Gaver, 2012).

The analysis adopts a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data to observe the development of collaborative and civic competencies and to evaluate enabling conditions within the learning environment. Preliminary findings suggest that the RDE model can act as a catalyst for transformative agency, encouraging students to move from executors of design briefs to active mediators of social change. Finally, the contribution discusses the transferability of the model by comparing the Roman experience with international adaptations such as D.I.S.ba and the São Paulo Design Experience 2026.