Systematic mapping of the literature on hackathons

Introduction: Hackathons have evolved from programming events to multidisciplinary pedagogical tools in educational settings, demanding structured methodological frameworks to maximize their educational impact. However, there is limited systematization regarding the methodological approaches implemented in student contexts.

Methods: This study conducted a systematic mapping of the literature to identify and categorize methodological frameworks used in student hackathons, analyzing their organizational structures, evaluation metrics, and reported outcomes. The review followed PRISMA guidelines and consulted three databases (Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore) for the period 2014–2024. Specific inclusion criteria for student hackathons were applied, resulting in 37 primary studies that met the established quality threshold (score ≥ 5/8).

Results: Five main categories of hackathons were identified: educational/curricular (48.6%), thematic/specialized (32.4%), civic/social (13.5%), and academic research (5.4%). The most frequent methodological frameworks were Design Thinking, agile methodologies, and Challenge-Based Learning. Predominant evaluation metrics included socio-educational impact, number of participants, participant satisfaction, lessons learned, and skills development. Outcomes were classified as tangible (mainly prototypes, projects, MVPs, and products) and intangible (soft skills development, business ideas, and entrepreneurial skills).

Discussion and conclusions: Student hackathons exhibit methodological diversity, with no consensus on standardized frameworks. Hybrid methodological approaches appear more effective in achieving educational objectives. Further research is needed to address project sustainability and long-term impact evaluation.

1 Introduction

Hackathons are intensive collaborative initiatives where participants develop innovative solutions to specific challenges within limited time frames, typically 24–48 h. Originally focused on programming, these events have evolved into multidisciplinary pedagogical tools that encompass technology, education, entrepreneurship, and social problem-solving, becoming powerful instruments for fostering innovation and experiential learning (Brdnik et al., 2023; McIntosh and Hardin, 2021).

Hackathons serve not only to generate innovative solutions by developing minimum viable products that address technological or social challenges, but also promote community empowerment and collective creation, leading to a significant impact in addressing local and global issues (Kovaleva et al., 2022).

Participation in these events enables participants to acquire essential skills and competencies in the contemporary context, including collaboration, analytical problem solving, and effective communication, which are fundamental elements of today’s job market (Gama et al., 2018; Gardó Huerta and Riera I Romaní, 2022; Kovaleva et al., 2022).

The integration of hackathons into educational settings has experienced exponential growth over the last decade, driven by their ability to develop 21st-century skills such as collaboration, critical thinking, creativity, and complex problem solving. These events facilitate the transfer of knowledge between universities, industry, and the community, creating ecosystems of innovation that transcend the traditional barriers of academic learning (Gama et al., 2018; Gardó Huerta and Riera I Romaní, 2022).

Participation in hackathons allows students to acquire essential skills for the contemporary job market, including project management, multidisciplinary teamwork, effective communication, and technological adaptability. Along with promoting student empowerment and collective creation, they generate a significant impact on local and global issues.

Despite the growing interest in educational hackathons, there is a significant gap in the systematization of methodological frameworks used in their design and implementation. The current literature presents fragmented approaches with no consensus on optimal organizational structures, standardized evaluation metrics, or replicable models that guarantee consistent results.

A preliminary search of academic databases reveals the absence of comprehensive studies that holistically address the methodological frameworks used in student hackathons. Existing studies focus on specific cases or aspects (technological, pedagogical, and organizational) without providing a holistic view of the methodological landscape.

This study is a systematic mapping of the literature. The main purpose of this research is to identify, categorize, and analyze the methodological frameworks used in student hackathons through a systematic mapping of the literature, providing a comprehensive view of the current state of the field. To achieve this, the following research questions were formulated:

• MQ1: What types of hackathons have been implemented in student contexts?

• MQ2: What hackathon formats have been used (in-person, virtual, hybrid)?

• MQ3: What are the identified roles within the hackathon ecosystem?

• MQ4: What organizational structures facilitate efficient execution?

• MQ5: What are the most common metrics for evaluating impact?

• MQ6: In which countries have student hackathons been implemented?

• MQ7: Who are the typical participants in student hackathons?

• MQ8: What topics are addressed in student hackathons?

• MQ9: What types of results do student hackathons generate?

The main objective is to identify, categorize, and analyze the methodological frameworks used in student hackathons through a systematic mapping of the literature, providing a comprehensive view of the current state of the field.

The specific objectives focus on categorizing the types of hackathons implemented in educational contexts, identifying methodological frameworks and organizational structures used, and analyzing evaluation metrics used to measure impact and effectiveness. Examine results and products generated by student hackathons, identify geographic trends, and determine knowledge gaps and opportunities for future research.

This systematic mapping will contribute to the field by: (1) providing the first comprehensive categorization of methodological frameworks in student hackathons, (2) identifying evidence-based best practices, (3) establishing a foundation for the development of standardized models, and (4) providing guidance for researchers and educators on the effective implementation of hackathons. In summary, the main contribution of this work is to review and categorize existing research to identify the most used trends, gaps, models, and metrics in hackathons, which will contribute to understanding the landscape in this area and the gaps that exist in this area.

The research is based on a structured overview of a specific research area, identifying the number and type of studies available, as well as trends in scientific production, focusing on classifying and visualizing the available research using categorization schemes and representative graphs.

Section 2 describes the planning phase in which research methods, mapping questions, inclusion/exclusion criteria, search strategy, and search strings are used. Section 3 describes the data extraction process using the PRISMA method. Section 4 focuses on answering the systematic literature mapping questions about frameworks for the development of student hackathons. Finally, the main findings of the study are discussed.

2 Research method

This study implements a systematic mapping of the literature following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Review guidelines (Tricco et al., 2018) to provide a comprehensive overview of the research landscape in methodological frameworks for student hackathons. Systematic mapping was selected as the appropriate methodology given the objective of exploring the breadth of the field, identifying types of available evidence, and mapping key concepts in an emerging area of research.

The study is based on the model proposed by Petersen et al. (2008) Figure 1, which defines three essential phases: (I) Definition of the search, where the research questions, the scope of the review, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the search strings are established; (II) Execution of the search, which includes the selection of primary works and the application of analysis criteria; and (III) Discussion of results, where characterization schemes are defined and results are analyzed.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Model proposed by Petersen.

2.1 Systematic mapping questions

The study was guided by nine mapping questions (MQs) designed to address different dimensions of student hackathons:

MQ1: What types of hackathons have been implemented in student contexts?

MQ2: What hackathon formats have been used (in-person, virtual, hybrid)?

MQ3: What are the identified roles within the hackathon ecosystem?

MQ4: What organizational structures facilitate efficient execution?

MQ5: What are the most common metrics for evaluating impact?

MQ6: In which countries have student hackathons been implemented?

MQ7: Who are the typical participants in student hackathons?

MQ8: What topics are addressed in student hackathons?

MQ9: What types of results do student hackathons generate?

2.2 PICOC framework

The PICOC (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Context) framework was used to define the scope of the review (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006):

Population (P): Students participating in hackathons.

Intervention (I): Implementation of hackathons with specific methodological frameworks.

Comparison (C): Not applicable (descriptive study).

Outcomes (O): Methodological frameworks, organizational structures, evaluation metrics, results obtained.

Context (C): Educational environments.

2.3 Eligibility criteria

The eligibility criteria were defined to select the primary studies and are presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

2.4 Search strategies

The search strategy was designed to identify relevant studies from comprehensive academic databases. Three databases were selected based on their extensive coverage of technology and education literature, advanced search capabilities, and institutional access: Scopus (Elsevier), a multidisciplinary database with broad coverage in social sciences and technology; Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), a citation index focused on high-impact publications; and the IEEE Xplore Digital Library, which is specialized in technology and computer science. The search terms were developed through a preliminary analysis of the literature and consultation with experts and were organized into three conceptual categories: terms related to hackathons (e.g., “hackathon,” “makeathon,” “hack day,”"codefest” “hack fest” “code sprint” “dev jam”), methodological terms (e.g., “framework,” “model,” “structure,” “schema” “template,”"blueprint,”"system,”"paradigm,” “architecture,”"protocol,”"roadmap”), and educational terms (e.g., “student,” “university,” “higher education,”"undergraduate,”"scholar,”"trainee,”"education”). Specific search strings were then constructed and adapted for the syntax of each database, combining the terms with Boolean operators to refine the search.

Below are the search strings for each database.

Scopus

Web on Science

IEEXplore

2.5 Data selection process

The selection process strictly followed the PRISMA-SCR guidelines, as illustrated in the flowchart (Figure 2). The initial search in the three electronic databases identified a total of 324 records: Scopus (244 records), Web of Science (80 records), and IEEE Xplore (0 records).

Figure 2

Figure 2. PRISMA-ScR flow diagram.

After removing 64 duplicates, 260 unique records remained for the screening phase. During Stage 3, these 260 articles were evaluated by reviewing their titles, abstracts, and keywords to determine their relevance to the research questions. This initial screening led to the exclusion of 218 articles. The primary reasons for exclusion at this stage were a lack of focus on hackathons in an educational context, the absence of a methodological framework, or a clear misalignment with the study’s objectives (e.g., articles focused exclusively on corporate hackathons without pedagogical components). Following this, 42 studies were selected for a full-text evaluation. Finally, after a thorough review and application of the quality criteria, 37 studies were included in the final sample for analysis.

Stage 1: Search and Download: Execution of search strings and download of results in CSV format.

Stage 2: Duplicate Removal: Identification and removal of duplicates using Google Sheets with automatic title detection.

Stage 3: Selection by Title and Abstract: Application of inclusion/exclusion criteria by reviewing title, abstract, and keywords.

Stage 4: Full Text Evaluation: Complete reading of articles and application of quality criteria.

2.6 Quality criteria

Eight quality criteria (C1-C8) were developed to evaluate the relevance and rigor of the studies, with a scoring system of 0 (does not meet), 0.5 (partially meets), or 1 (fully meets):

C1: Relevance of results to research objectives (0–1).

C2: Implementation in real context (0–1).

C3: Development in a student context (0–1).

C4: Identification of evaluation metrics (0–1).

C5: Identification of limitations and future work (0–1).

C6: Addressing gender issues (0–1).

C7: Clear methodological description (0–1).

C8: Multiple editions or implementations (0–1).

A minimum threshold of 5/8 points was established for final inclusion, based on analysis of score distribution in a pilot sample and consensus among expert reviewers.

2.7 Data extraction

A data extraction form was designed to capture relevant information for each mapping question:

Bibliographic Data: Author(s), year, title, source, country, type of publication.

Methodological Data: Type of hackathon, format, methodological framework, organizational structure.

Participant Data: Participant profile, number, identified roles.

Results Data: Metrics used, results obtained, topics addressed Quality Data: Score on criteria C1-.

3 Results of the systemic mapping

3.1 Characteristics of the studies included

3.1.1 Temporal distribution

The studies included cover the period 2014–2024, with a notable concentration in recent years. The temporal distribution shows sustained growth: 2014–2016 (4 studies, 10.8%), 2017–2019 (10 studies, 27.0%), 2020–2022 (16 studies, 43.2%), 2023–2024 (7 studies, 18.9%). This pattern reflects the growing interest in educational hackathons, which has accelerated particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

3.1.2 Geographic distribution

The studies come from 16 different countries, with the United States predominating (11 studies, 29.7%), followed by Germany and Brazil (3 studies each, 8.1%). Other countries represented include Finland, Slovenia, Italy, Serbia, and several European countries with multinational collaborations. This geographic distribution indicates a concentration of research in developed countries with established educational innovation ecosystems.

This concentration in developed countries suggests a correlation between mature innovation ecosystems and the adoption of hackathons as a pedagogical tool.

Particularly noteworthy is the emergence of research in developing countries, including Brazil, Serbia, and South Africa, indicating the global expansion of these methodologies beyond traditionally technological contexts.

3.1.3 Types of publication

The sample includes conference papers (26 studies, 70.3%), journal articles (9 studies, 24.3%), and book chapters (2 studies, 5.4%). The predominance of conference publications reflects the emerging and practical nature of the field, where findings are rapidly shared at specialized academic events.

The journal articles included come from high-impact publications in education and engineering, including Computers & Education, IEEE Transactions on Education, and International Journal of Engineering Education, which validates the academic relevance of the field.

3.2 Systemic mapping questions

3.2.1 MQ1: what types of hackathons have been held?

The analysis revealed five main categories of hackathons in student contexts, each with specific characteristics and objectives:

Educational/Curricular Hackathons (18 studies, 48.6%), this category represents the formal integration of hackathons into the academic curriculum as structured pedagogical tools. Educational/curricular hackathons are characterized by specific learning objectives, formal academic assessment, and alignment with curricular competencies. Examples include hackathons integrated into courses in software engineering, product design, and technological entrepreneurship. Thematic/Specialized Hackathons (12 studies, 32.4%) focus on specific domains such as blockchain, the Internet of Things (IoT), cybersecurity, environmental sustainability, mental health, and extended reality (XR). This specialization allows for technical deepening and the development of expertise in emerging areas.

Civic/Social Hackathons (5 studies, 13.5%) address issues of social justice, gender equality, educational transformation, and community development. This category reflects a growing awareness of the social responsibility of technology and innovation.

Academic Research Hackathons (2 studies, 5.4%) include studies that analyze hackathons as objects of research rather than as implemented events (Table 2).

Table 2

Table 2. Types of hackathons.

3.2.2 Q2: what format have hackathons taken?

The analysis of implementation formats revealed significant adaptation to technological contexts and situational constraints: In-person format (22 studies, 59.5%), these in-person hackathons maintain the traditional format with participants physically gathered in dedicated spaces, facilitating intensive face-to-face collaboration and direct access to mentors. Virtual/Online Format (6 studies, 16.2%), virtual hackathons use digital platforms to facilitate remote collaboration, using various digital platforms for communication, collaboration, mentoring, and presentations, such as Zoom, Slack, Discord, Mentornity, or Microsoft Teams, allowing for geographically distributed participation. Hybrid format (5 studies, 13.5%): these combine face-to-face and virtual elements, allowing flexible participation according to individual circumstances. Academic research (2 studies, 5.2%) includes research that analyzes hackathons without implementing specific events. No information (2 studies, 5.2%) includes studies that do not clearly specify the implementation format (Table 3).

Table 3

Table 3. Type hackathons format.

3.2.3 Q3: what roles exist within the organizing team?

Hackathons require a structured organization in which various roles contribute to the success of the event. The analysis identified 10 main roles within the student hackathon ecosystem, each with specific responsibilities and contributions:

Students (29 studies, 78.4%), students constitute the participatory core of educational hackathons, contributing creative energy, current academic knowledge, and diverse perspectives.

Organizers (20 studies, 54.1%), organizers coordinate logistical, pedagogical, and strategic aspects of hackathons, including academic staff, university administrators, and representatives of sponsoring organizations. Mentors (29 studies, 78.4%), Mentors provide technical, methodological, and strategic guidance during project development, typically including industry professionals, senior researchers, and experienced entrepreneurs. Judges/Evaluators (25 studies, 67.6%), Judges evaluate final projects according to predefined criteria, providing constructive feedback and selecting winners. Industry Representatives (5 studies, 13.5%), Industry participation brings market perspectives, real-world challenges, and technology transfer opportunities. Teachers/Facilitators (20 studies, 54.1%): Teachers integrate hackathons into curricular contexts, providing a pedagogical framework and academic evaluation. Stakeholders (6 studies, 16.2%): This category includes the people who will be the users of the developed or proposed solution. Sponsors (7 studies, 18.9%): This category includes companies, the government, institutions, or individuals who make a financial contribution to the development of the initiative. Community/Volunteers (1 study, 2.7%): Community participation provides end-user perspectives and facilitates the validation of solutions in real contexts. Other Specialized Roles (24 studies, 64.9%): This includes the specific roles defined in the included literature (Table 4).

Table 4

Table 4. Roles in a hackathon.

3.2.4 MQ4: what organizational structures facilitate the efficient execution of hackathons?

The analysis revealed significant diversity in organizational structures, with recurring patterns emerging:

Methodological Frameworks (23 studies, 62.2%) Design Thinking emerges as the most widely used framework, its popularity due to its clear structure (empathize, define, ideate, prototype, test) that naturally aligns with the duration and objectives of hackathons and objectives of hackathons. It is followed by Challenge-Based Learning, which is particularly effective in themed hackathons that address specific industry or community challenges. Agile methodologies are implemented especially in hackathons with a significant technological component.

Mentoring systems (15 studies, 40.5%) emerge as a critical element. The analysis identifies three models: assigned mentoring (specific mentor per team), rotating mentoring (mentors circulate among teams), and specialized mentoring (mentors by technical domain).

Team Formation (12 studies, 32.4%), team formation strategies range from self-selection to algorithmic assignment based on skill complementarity. The analysis suggests that multidisciplinary teams of 3–5 members optimize collaboration and productivity.

Collaboration tools (7 studies, 18.9%), technological ecosystem for communication and joint work, which reduces friction and increases transparency and scalability (Table 5).

Table 5

Table 5. Organizational structures hackathons.

Detailed logistics planning (7 studies, 18.9%) covers all operational aspects necessary to create an environment conducive to innovation and effective collaboration during the hackathon.

Continuous monitoring/feedback (6 studies, 16.2%), based on experiential learning principles that require constant reflection to maximize knowledge acquisition and skill development.

Internal/external interdisciplinary collaboration (5 studies, 13.5%) represents the intentional integration of diverse perspectives, knowledge, and stakeholders to enrich the innovation process and increase the relevance of the solutions developed.

Agile/iterative practices (5 studies, 13.5%) adapt principles of agile software development to the context of hackathons, emphasizing flexibility, collaboration, incremental delivery, and rapid response to change.

Prototypes (2 studies, 5.4%) are tangible and functional representations of ideas that enable rapid concept validation, effective communication of visions, and demonstration of technical feasibility within extreme time constraints (Table 6).

Table 6

Table 6. Organizational structure hackathons.

3.2.5 MQ5: what are the most common and effective metrics for evaluating the impact of a hackathon?

The metrics defined within a hackathon can be tangible or intangible. Among the most frequently used metrics are socio-educational impact (16 articles, 44.4%), which considers the multilateral effects of education, community, and institutions, divided into four dimensions: individual skills development, collaborative skills, solutions to real problems, and institutional transformation, combining quantitative and qualitative indicators. This is followed by the metric of number of participants (15 articles, 41.7%), which refers to the number of participants in the initiative. Participant satisfaction (14 articles, 38.9%) is a metric that measures participants’ satisfaction with attending the event. Lessons learned (12 articles, 33.3%), Development of technical and soft skills (11 articles, 30.6%), measures the acquisition of technical skills (programming, design, analysis) and cross-cutting skills such as communication, leadership, and teamwork. Perception of learning (9 articles, 25.0%), corresponds to a subjective assessment by participants of what and how much they learned during the hackathons. Post-event survey (9 articles, 25.0%), an instrument applied after the hackathons to measure satisfaction, learning, experiences, and suggestions for improvement. Degree of interdisciplinary collaboration (9 articles, 25.0%), measurement of the effectiveness of the work carried out collaboratively between participants from different disciplines, areas of knowledge, or academic backgrounds. Active participation (7 articles, 19.4%), corresponding to the level of involvement of participants in the event from start to finish. Quality of prototypes (6 articles, 16.37%), evaluating the functionality, innovation, technical feasibility, and relevance of the solutions developed during the hackathons (Tables 7, 8).

Table 7

Table 7. Metrics hackathons.

Table 8

Table 8. Metrics hackathons for authors.

3.2.6 Q6: in which countries have they been carried out?

The distribution of studies reflects a predominance of developed countries (22 studies, 59.5%), with the United States consolidating its position as the epicenter of educational hackathon research (11 studies, 29.7%). Western Europe is represented by Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Finland, and Slovenia (1 each). Canada and Australia are also present with 2 and 1 study respectively, completing the representation of developed countries. Developing countries represent (7 studies, 18.9%) of the articles analyzed, with Brazil standing out with 3 studies, making it the leader in Latin America. Africa is represented by South Africa with 2 studies, while Singapore, Russia, and Serbia complete the sample with 1 article each. There is a notable absence of countries from Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia.

International initiatives suggest the transfer of knowledge and models of academic cooperation. Within these collaborations, the US has joint collaborations between the US-Serbia, US-Mexico, and US-Spain, while European collaboration is reflected in the collaboration between Finland and Ireland.

The concentration of research in developed countries (59.5% vs. 18.9%) reflects a global digital divide and differences in technological resources and infrastructure, academic research capacity, established innovation ecosystems, and funding for educational research. This provides significant opportunities for developing countries to adapt the hackathon model to resource-limited contexts, develop research in diverse cultural contexts, create international collaboration programs, and study effectiveness in different education systems. There is an urgent need to democratize access to educational hackathons and geographically diversify research to achieve a more equitable global impact on higher education (Table 9).

Table 9

Table 9. Number of hackathons by country.

3.2.7 Q7: who are the participants in a hackathon?

The predominant profile of hackathon participants is students (28 studies, 75.7%) ranging from secondary school to postgraduate level, representing the core of educational hackathons. The studies include a variety of academic levels with a focus on experiential learning and the development of technical and cross-cutting skills. The largest group is represented by university students (14 studies, 37.8%), involving students from various academic disciplines. They are followed by postgraduate students (3 studies, 8.1%), master’s and doctoral students who contribute academic depth and research experience. Undergraduate-graduate students (3 studies, 8.1%) correspond to a mix of students from different university levels, enriching the diversity of knowledge and experience. High school students (1 study, 2.7%) correspond to secondary education students who participate in these events as an early introduction to innovation methodologies, facilitating the development of technical skills. One study shows the participation of secondary school and university students (1 study, 2.7%), creating an intergenerational combination that facilitates mentoring between students and promotes the transfer of knowledge and the development of leadership skills among peers. The broadest range of students is reflected in students from elementary school to graduate school (1 study, 2.7%), covering the entire educational spectrum, representing the focus on continuing education and skills development throughout the academic career. One study reflects the participation of technology students (1 study, 2.7%), specializing in areas of technology, who contribute technical expertise and advanced technological development capabilities.

There are specific participants (2 studies, 5.4%), participants with professional expertise specializing in health (1 study), and library staff (1 study). These participants contribute their technical knowledge and professional perspectives to address sectoral issues. Participants with more than one profile (1 study) are the intentional combination of different roles such as students, teachers, and administrators, which facilitates a comprehensive understanding of educational issues from multiple organizational perspectives. There are three studies that do not clearly specify the profile of the participants, referring to them generically as “participants.” There are three studies categorized as “Others,” which refers to theoretical studies without specific participants or research without information on profiles, representing conceptual analyses or literature reviews rather than practical experiences (Table 10).

Table 10

Table 10. Participants in a hackathon.

3.2.8 MQ8: what topics are addressed in hackathons?

When analyzing the topics addressed in hackathons, it was possible to identify a predominance of educational topics (16 studies, 43.2%), which are classified as pure educational topics (9 studies, 24.3%), educational and innovation topics (4 studies, 10.8%) that combine learning and innovative development, and educational and interdisciplinary topics (3 studies, 8.1%), which combines learning with different disciplines. The most frequent theme is thematic (11 studies, 29.7%), with hackathons specializing in specific areas such as blockchain, IoT, cybersecurity, mental health, environmental sustainability, and XR. Civic/social themes are in third place (5 studies, 13.5%), focusing on social impact. Examples of some initiatives are feminist hackathons, civic educational transformation, and gender balance. Innovation and interdisciplinary (3 studies, 8.1%) combines the development of innovative solutions with collaboration between multiple academic and professional disciplines, emphasizing the generation of disruptive ideas through the integration of diverse knowledge. Others (2 studies, 5.4%) corresponds to the residual category that includes hackathons with thematic approaches that do not fit into the main classifications established (Table 11).

Table 11

Table 11. Hackathons topics.

3.2.9 Q9: what kind of results do hackathons deliver?

The most frequent result was prototypes (12 studies, 32.4%), reflecting the practical nature of hackathons. Soft skills development came in second place (5 studies, 13.5%), with cross-cutting skills such as leadership, teamwork, critical thinking, and problem solving. Project delivery (4 studies, 10.8%) refers to broader, more structured initiatives that go beyond prototypes, including planning and development roadmaps, representing comprehensive proposals with a higher level of conceptual elaboration. MPVs (3 studies, 8.1%) present the essential functionalities to validate the hypothesis. Products (3 studies, 8.1%) are solutions that are more developed than prototypes, with a higher level of completeness and functionality. Innovation ideas (2 studies, 5.4%) are creative concepts and innovative proposals in the early stages of development, focused on originality and disruptive potential. Entrepreneurial competencies (1 study, 1.2.7%), specific skills to identify opportunities, develop business models, manage risks, and lead initiatives. Solution proposals (1 study, 2.7%), structured and substantiated recommendations to address specific issues identified during hackathons. Research proposals (1 study, 2.7%), research projects emerging from the hackathon, including research questions, methodologies, and theoretical frameworks. Applications (1 study, 2.7%), functional software developed in hackathons with a user interface.

Technical skills (1 study, 2.7%), specific competencies in technology or the use of technological tools. Sense of community (1 study, 2.7%), development of social bonds, group belonging, and collective commitment among participants, strengthening of collaborative networks. Innovative solutions (1 study, 2.7%), creative and disruptive approaches to problem solving, characterized by originality and transformative potential. Document updating (1 study, 2.7%), improvements in documentation systems, information management, and institutional content updating processes (Table 12).

Table 12

Table 12. Hackathon results.

4 Discussion

This systematic mapping provides the first comprehensive categorization of methodological frameworks used in student hackathons, revealing a rapidly evolving field with significant diversification of approaches, formats, and objectives. The main findings include: (1) the predominance of educational/curricular hackathons as established pedagogical tools, as evidenced by studies such as Brdnik et al. (2023), (2) thematic diversification toward social issues and technical specializations, as observed in Kovaleva et al. (2022), (3) successful adaptation to virtual and hybrid formats, demonstrated in Braune et al. (2021) and Kopeć et al. (2022), and (4) absence of standardized methodological frameworks with a prevalence of hybrid approaches.

The results show that hackathons have successfully evolved from programming events to multidisciplinary pedagogical tools integrated into higher education curricula. The predominance of educational/curricular hackathons (47.4%), represented by studies such as Gama et al. (2018) and Uys (2020), indicates the maturity of the field and institutional recognition of its educational value. This evolution reflects broader trends toward experiential learning, active pedagogies, and the development of 21st-century skills in higher education.

Successful curricular integration, as documented in Miličević et al. (2024), requires careful alignment with learning objectives, formal academic assessment, and post-event follow-up to consolidate learning. Studies reveal that the most effective educational hackathons, exemplified by Mtsweni and Abdullah (2015), combine structured pre-event preparation, well-facilitated intensive events, and post-event critical reflection to maximize pedagogical impact.

The thematic diversification toward thematic/specialized (32.4%) and civic/social (13.2%) hackathons reflects the maturation of the field and recognition of the potential of hackathons to address complex issues beyond technological development. This trend, evidenced in studies such as D’Ignazio et al. (2020) and Paul (2020), indicates an evolution toward social responsibility in innovation and recognition of the importance of social context in technological development.

Specialized hackathons, such as Wiljer et al. (2017) and Costa Wanderley and Bonacin (2019), allow for technical deepening in emerging areas such as blockchain, artificial intelligence, and environmental sustainability, facilitating the development of specific expertise and connections with relevant industrial ecosystems. However, specialization presents risks of fragmentation of the field and possible exclusion of participants without specific prior knowledge.

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of virtual (16.2%) and hybrid (13.5%) formats, demonstrating the adaptability of the hackathon model to technological and geographical constraints. Studies such as Braune et al. (2021) and Gutta et al. (2022) reveal that successful virtual hackathons require sophisticated collaboration tools, expert facilitation of remote group dynamics, and specific strategies to maintain engagement and motivation.

Hybrid formats, exemplified by Brdnik et al. (2023), are emerging as a promising solution that combines the advantages of face-to-face interaction with the flexibility and reach of virtual modalities. However, hybrid implementation requires complex logistical coordination and careful consideration of equity between face-to-face and remote participants.

Despite the growth of the field, there is no consensus on standardized methodological frameworks for the design and implementation of student hackathons. The most commonly used approaches include Design Thinking, as evidenced in Artiles and Lande (2016), agile methodologies as observed in Gama et al., (2018) and Challenge-Based Learning documented in Rennick et al. (2018), but they are typically implemented in hybrid combinations adapted to specific contexts.

This methodological diversity reflects both the flexibility of the hackathon model and the absence of systematic research on the comparative effectiveness of different approaches. The prevalence of hybrid approaches suggests that the most effective hackathons integrate multiple methodologies according to specific objectives, participant characteristics, and available resources.

4.1 Implications for practice

Based on the findings of the systematic mapping, practical recommendations can be made to educators, institutions, and organizers interested in implementing effective student hackathons:

Define the objective of the hackathon: Before organizing a hackathon, it is crucial to define a specific objective. These objectives should be aligned with a problem to be solved or a curriculum to be covered and the desired skills to be developed by students.

Adopt a hybrid methodological framework: According to the findings, the most successful hackathons use more than one methodology for their implementation and development. Using a hybrid approach that combines Design Thinking for creativity, agile methodologies for flexibility, and a problem-based approach produces better results. A framework should be designed to guide students through the stages of ideation, development, and validation.

Encourage interdisciplinary collaboration: Findings show that multidisciplinary teams are more productive and innovative. The formation of teams with multidisciplinary students should be actively promoted. This can be achieved through networking activities prior to the event.

Implement a solid mentoring system: Mentors are critical to the success of a hackathon. Combining role model mentors (who provide theoretical and technical foundations at each stage of the hackathon), rotating mentors (for ongoing guidance to teams), and specialized mentors (who provide technical expertise) can provide comprehensive support to participants.

Use a multidimensional evaluation model: Evaluation should go beyond the final prototype. It is recommended to use a multidimensional model that evaluates not only the quality of the technical solution, but also the potential impact, possibility of implementation, and development of soft skills. This can be done through a combination of judge evaluations and peer evaluations.

Plan for post-hackathon sustainability: To maximize long-term impact, institutions should create pathways for the continued development of promising projects. This may include incubation programs, seed funding opportunities, or integration into subsequent courses.

4.2 Study limitations

This systematic mapping has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the search was limited to three academic databases, potentially excluding relevant literature in specialized repositories or gray literature. Second, the inclusion criteria focused on student contexts may have excluded corporate or community hackathons with educational relevance. Third, the diversity of terminology used to describe similar events may have resulted in the exclusion of relevant studies. Fourth, the methodological quality of the included studies varies significantly, with many studies reporting specific experiences without rigorous evaluation of effectiveness. Fifth, the absence of longitudinal studies limits the understanding of the long-term impact of participation in hackathons. Finally, the geographical concentration in developed countries limits the generalization of findings to diverse cultural and economic contexts.

5 Conclusion

The systematic mapping of the literature provides the first comprehensive categorization of methodological frameworks used in student hackathons, based on the analysis of 37 primary studies published between 2014 and 2024.

The findings reveal a rapidly evolving field characterized by significant diversification of approaches, formats, and objectives, with clear trends toward curricular integration, social responsibility, and technological adaptation, demonstrating significant potential as pedagogical tools for developing 21st-century skills, as evidenced by studies such as Jussila et al. (2020) and Mtsweni and Abdullah (2015), facilitating experiential learning, interdisciplinary collaboration, and connections between academia and industry. However, realizing this potential requires careful evidence-based implementation, adequate resources, and systematic evaluation of outcomes.

Educational/curricular hackathons emerge as the predominant category (48.6%), represented by fundamental studies such as Brdnik et al. (2023) and Rennick et al. (2018), indicating the maturity of the field and institutional recognition of its pedagogical value. Thematic diversification toward civic/social hackathons (13.5%), evidenced in Kovaleva et al. (2022) and thematic/specialized (32.4%), such as Wei-Kocsis et al. (2022) and Wiljer et al. (2017), reflects an evolution toward social responsibility in innovation and the development of expertise in emerging areas.

This study contributes to the field by: (1) providing the first comprehensive taxonomy of types of hackathons in student contexts, clearly differentiating between categories such as educational/curricular (Gama et al., 2018), thematic/specialized (Paul, 2020), and civic/social (Chan and Goldstein, 2021), (2) identifying the most commonly used methodological frameworks and their characteristics, including Design Thinking (Artiles and Lande, 2016), (Chan and Goldstein, 2021), (2) identifying the most commonly used methodological frameworks and their characteristics, including Design Thinking (Artiles and Lande, 2016), agile methodologies (Gutta et al., 2022) and Challenge-Based Learning (Yuen and Wong, 2021), (3) systematic analysis of evaluation metrics used, from socio-educational impact to lessons learned, (4) mapping of the geographical and temporal distribution of research, and (5) identification of knowledge gaps and opportunities for future research.

The field would benefit from greater methodological rigor in research, the development of standardized frameworks based on successful studies such as Cobham et al. (2017), and attention to the sustainability of results. The geographical and cultural diversification of research is essential for a comprehensive understanding of the adaptability and effectiveness of hackathon models in diverse contexts.

5.1 Future work

The findings identify several priority directions for future research based on the studies analyzed: Development of Standardized Frameworks: The absence of standardized methodological frameworks, evidenced by the diversity of approaches in studies such as Medina and Tschudi (2022) versus Olesen et al. (2018), represents an opportunity for the development of replicable, evidence-based models.

Longitudinal Impact Assessment: The limitation of longitudinal studies, with most studies such as Miličević et al. (2024) focusing on immediate results, requires research on the long-term impact of participation in hackathons.

Geographic and Cultural Diversification: The concentration in developed countries, with only isolated studies such as Avalos et al. (2017) in Brazil, requires research on the adaptation of hackathon models to developing country contexts.

Data availability statement

Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15y-hUqbu4rQyi0BjSjATwWCEtjH0xtiOSIP6LfreACM/edit?gid=0#gid=0.

Author contributions

GC: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AG-H: Writing – review & editing. PA: Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Armstrong, J., and Longmeier, M. (2020). “An informal learning program as a replicable model for student-led,” Industry-supported experiential learning. Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference & Exposition. virtual from Montreal, Quebec, Canada: American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE).

Google Scholar

Artiles, J. A., and Lande, M. (2016). Broadening non-designers’ solutions for big issues: the education design shop design thinking workshop. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32, 1418–1427.

Google Scholar

Artiles, J., and LeVine, K. (2015). Ta-Da! You’re a design thinker! Validating the DesignShop as a model for teaching design thinking to non-designers and achieving systemic re-design in the education system. 2015 ASEE Annual Conf. Exposition Proc. Seattle, WA, USA: American Society for Engineering Education. 26, 1–26. doi: 10.18260/p.24792

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Avalos, M., Larios, V. M., Salazar, P., and Maciel, R. (2017). “Hackathons, semesterathons, and summerathons as vehicles to develop smart city local talent that via their innovations promote synergy between industry, academia, government and citizens,” in 2017 International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), Ciudad: Guadalajara, México: IEEE 1–6.

Google Scholar

Bakallbashi, E., Vyas, A., Vaswani, N., Rosales, D., Russell, D., Dowding, D., et al. (2015). Enhancing cross-functional collaboration and effective problem solving through an innovation challenge for point-of-care providers. JONA J. Nurs. Adm. 45, 354–357. doi: 10.1097/NNA.0000000000000213,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Behrenbeck, J., Martins Pacheco, N. M., Tariq, B., and Zimmermann, M. (2020). “A behavior-centric concept for engineering education in new product development. Balancing innovation and operation,” in Proceedings of NordDesign 2020. Springer: Springer Nature.

Google Scholar

Bergland, K., Davis, K. K., and Traill, S. (2019). Catdoc hackdoc: tools and processes for managing documentation lifecycle, workflows, and accessibility. Cataloging Classif. Q. 57, 463–495. doi: 10.1080/01639374.2019.1680470

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Braune, K., Rojas, P.-D., Hofferbert, J., Valera Sosa, A., Lebedev, A., Balzer, F., et al. (2021). Interdisciplinary online hackathons as an approach to combat the COVID-19 pandemic: case study. J. Med. Internet Res. 23:e25283. doi: 10.2196/25283,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Brdnik, S., Györkös, J., Kuhar, S., and Turkanović, M. (2023). A curriculum framework for introducing hackathons in engineering studies. En L. Uden and D. Liberona (Eds.), Learning Technology for Education Challenges (176–188). Cham Springer Nature Switzerland

Google Scholar

Carr, K.-A., Jayabharathi, A., Sharp, J., Burroughs, J., Rivera, J., and Gray-Roncal, W. (2023). “A predictive analysis of imposter phenomenon in STEM education,” in 2023 IEEE integrated STEM education conference (ISEC), IEEE: Ciudad: Rotativo, USA. 320–325.

Google Scholar

Chan, A., and Goldstein, M. (2021). “Engagement in practice: social performance and harm in civic hackathons,” in 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings. American Society for Engineering Education. Editorial: ASEE.

Google Scholar

Cobham, D., Gowen, C., Jacques, K., Laurel, J., and Ringham, S. (2017). From APPFEST to entrepreneurs: using a hackathon event to SEED a university student-led enterprise. INTED2017 Proc. 22, 522–529. doi: 10.21125/inted.2017.0265

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Costa Wanderley, A. R. M., and Bonacin, R. (2019). Designing Mobile and IoT solutions for sustainable smart cities: studies with electronic waste disposal. En N. Streitz and S. Konomi (Eds.), Distributed, ambient and pervasive interactions (212–226). Cham Springer International Publishing

Google Scholar

Čović, Z., and Fürstner, I. (2024). The use of information security methods and techniques in the education of software engineers. En T. A. Kovács, Z. Nyikes, T. Berek, N. Daruka, and L. Tóth (Eds.), Critical infrastructure protection in the light of the armed conflicts (pp. 137–147). Berlin Springer Nature Switzerland

Google Scholar

D’Ignazio, C., Michelson, R., Hope, A., Hoy, J., Roberts, J., and Krontiris, K. (2020). “The personal is political»: hackathons as feminist consciousness raising,” in Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction, 4(CSCW2), ACM. Editorial: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). 1–23.

Google Scholar

Gama, K., Alencar, B., Calegario, F., Neves, A., and Alessio, P. (2018). “A hackathon methodology for undergraduate course projects,” in 2018 IEEE Frontiers in education conference (FIE), San José, CA, USA. Editorial: IEEE. 1–9.

Google Scholar

Gama, K., Zimmerle, C., and Rossi, P. (2021). Online hackathons as an engaging tool to promote group work in emergency remote learning. Proc. 26th ACM Conf. Innov. Technol. Comput. Sci. Educ. Tenerife, España. Editorial: ACM. 1, 345–351. doi: 10.1145/3430665.3456312

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gardó Huerta, H., and Riera I Romaní, J. (2022). Marco de competencias para el análisis de hackatones cívicas de transformación educativa. Edutec. Rev. Electron. Tecnol. Educ. 82, 9–28. doi: 10.21556/edutec.2022.82.2637

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gutta, S., Ouyang, Y., and Ochanji, M. K. (2022). Creating socially relevant apps through virtual hackathons for high school girls. Proc. 54th ACM Tech. Symp. Comput. Sci. Education. Providence, RI, USA. Editorial: ACM 2, 1313–1313. doi: 10.1145/3545947.3576260

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jussila, J., Suominen, A. H., and Rainio, T. (2020). Entrepreneurship competence using educational hackathons in Finland. J. Finn. Stud. 23, 32–73. doi: 10.5406/28315081.23.2.05

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kopeć, W., Skorupska, K., Jaskulska, A., Łukasik, M., Karpowicz, B., Paluch, J., et al. (2022). XR hackathon going online: lessons learned from a case study with Goethe-Institut (Versión 1). arXiv:2207.03833. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2207.03833

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kovaleva, Y., Happonen, A., and Mbogho, A. (2022). “Towards gender balance in modern hackathons: literature-based approaches for female inclusiveness,” in Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Gender Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering, IEEE/ACM. (USA / virtual). 19–26.

Google Scholar

McIntosh, L., and Hardin, C. D. (2021). “Do hackathon projects change the world? An empirical analysis of GitHub repositories,” in Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Toronto, Canadá. Editorial: ACM. 879–885.

Google Scholar

Medina, R., and Tschudi, S. (2022). “Hack the experience: scaffolding Codesign processes for organizational innovation in language learning,” in Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE. City: Kaua’i, Hawai’i, USA.

Google Scholar

Miličević, A., Despotović-Zrakić, M., Stojanović, D., Suvajžić, M., and Labus, A. (2024). Academic performance indicators for the hackathon learning approach – the case of the blockchain hackathon. J. Innov. Knowl. 9:100501. doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2024.100501

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mtsweni, J., and Abdullah, H. (2015). Stimulating and maintaining students’ interest in computer science using the hackathon model. The Journal of Teaching and Learning. 10, 85–97.

Google Scholar

Olesen, J. F., Hansen, N. B., and Halskov, K. (2018). “Four factors informing design judgement at a hackathon,” in Proceedings of the 30th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, Sydney, Australia: ACM. 473–483.

Google Scholar

Paul, S. (2020). University environmental hackathons to further the sustainable development goals. En Sustainable Dev. Goals Series 22, 131–140. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-26157-3_11

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., and Mattsson, M. (2008). “Systematic mapping studies in software engineering,” in 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE). Londers, UK: BCS / ACM Digital Library. 68–77.

Google Scholar

Petticrew, M., and Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. 1.a Edn. Amsterdam: Wiley.

Google Scholar

Pisuttu, C., Adducci, F., Arena, S., Bigongiali, D., Callea, L., Carmignani, P., et al. (2024). A master’s course can emphasize circular economy in municipal solid waste management: evidence from the University of Pisa. Sustainability 16:1966. doi: 10.3390/su16051966

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Porras, J., Knutas, A., Happonen, A., Khakurel, J., Ikonen, J., and Herala, A. (2019). “Code camps and hackathons in education—literature review and lessons learned,” in Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawai’i, USA: IEEE. 7750–7759.

Google Scholar

Rennick, C., Hulls, C., Wright, D., Milne, A., Li, E., and Bedi, S. (2018). “Engineering design days: engaging students with authentic problem-solving in an academic hackathon,” in 2018 Salt Lake City, UT, USA: ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings.

Google Scholar

Roscani, V., Scatena, L., Lombardi, E., Barlas, A., Singer-Coudoux, K., and Nicolai Buxmann, H. (2023). Enhancing the European entrepreneurial ecosystem by closing the gap between high and low/moderate innovation regions: the ENTREPRENEDU case. 74th International Astronautical Congress IAC (IAC), Baku, Azerbaijan. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13144698

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Taratukhin, V., Kupriyanov, Y. V., Welch, C., and Anikushina, V. (2018). Leveraging the Tech-savvy Next-generation Talents and Hackathon Techniques to Accelerate Digital Enterprise Journey and Space-related Endeavors. Paper presented at 2018. Salt Lake City, Utah: ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. doi: 10.18260/1-2--29872

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., and Levac, D. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine 169, 467–473. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Uys, W. F. (2020). “Hackathons as a formal teaching approach in information systems capstone courses” in ICT education. eds. B. Tait, J. Kroeze, and S. Gruner, vol. 1136 (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 79–95.

Google Scholar

Wei-Kocsis, J., Sabounchi, M., Yang, B., and Zhang, T. (2022). “Cybersecurity education in the age of artificial intelligence: a novel proactive and collaborative learning paradigm,” in 2022 IEEE Frontiers in education conference, (Rapid City, SD, USA: FIE). 1–5.

Google Scholar

Wiljer, D., Johnson, A., and McDiarmid, E. (2017). Thought spot: co-creating mental health solutions with post-secondary students. Studies Health Technol. Inf. Chicago, IL, USA: IOS Press. 234, 1–12.

Google Scholar

Yuen, K. K. F., and Wong, A. O. M. (2021). “Designing an effective hackathon via university-industry collaboration for data science education,” in 2021 IEEE international conference on engineering, Technology & Education (TALE), Bangkok, Thailandia: IEEE. 1–6.

Google Scholar