Hoofdstuk 2 uit Position paper Learning Communities van Netwerk learning Communities Grote maatschappelijke uitdagingen op het gebied van vergrijzing, duurzaamheid, digitalisering, segregatie en onderwijskwaliteit vragen om nieuwe manieren van werken, leren en innoveren. In toenemende mate wordt daarom ingezet op het bundelen van kennis en expertise van zowel publieke als private organisaties, die elkaar nodig hebben om te innoveren en complexe vraagstukken aan te pakken. Het concept ‘learning communities’ wordt gezien als dé oplossing om leren, werken en innoveren anders met elkaar te verbinden: collaboratief, co-creërend en contextrijk. Vanuit het Netwerk Learning Communities is een groep onafhankelijk onderzoekers van een groot aantal Nederlandse kennisinstellingen aan de slag gegaan met een kennissynthese rondom het concept ‘Learning Community’. Het Position paper is een eerste aanzet tot kennisbundeling. Een ‘levend document’ dat in de komende tijd verder aangevuld en verrijkt kan worden door onderzoekers, praktijkprofessionals en beleidsmakers.
This paper describes how an urban commons is established on the Amsterdam market square Plein ’40-’45, to explain how an experimental learning environment can be a living lab for improving collaborative governance arrangements. We detail how this improvement is facilitated by an experimental learning environment that engages stakeholders in a process where practical solutions are developed and systemic obstacles are addressed and redesigned simultaneously. Our study is guided by the research question: How can an experimental learning environment develop practical solutions as a means to address systemic obstacles and improve collaborative governance arrangements?
Purpose of this studyThis study aims to better understand the deliberate design of student learning in living labs.Theoretical backgroundThe intended purpose of living labs in higher education is to integrate education, research and professional practice and thereby integrate initial learning (of students) and innovation (Schipper, Vos & Wallner, 2022). Yet, the literature shows a divide between innovation focused labs and student focused labs. Innovation focused labs hardly include students (Kalinauskaite, Brankaert, et. al., 2021; Westerlund, Leminen, & Habib, 2018), while student focused labs are framed as sec pedagogical devices, with transferable innovation positioned as a mere by-product of education (Admiraal et al., 2019; McLaughlan & Lodge, 2019). A review of the international literature on higher education living labs calls for both practice and research to be developed to realize the intended integration between initial learning and innovation in living labs (Griffioen & van Heijningen, 2023).A way to follow up on that call is to better position students in living lab practices. Students’ learning experiences in living labs are so far rather weakly framed compared to their learning in traditional, transmissive educational settings such as lectures. One of the differences is that the relationships in living labs are more open to initiative and have shown to require more autonomy in students (Barnett & Coate, 2005, p. 34). This asks of students to take on other roles and of lecturers that they tailor their pedagogical practices to student learning in the lab setting (McLaughlan & Lodge, 2019). Moreover, students and lecturers collaborate with professional partners in labs, adding to the complexity of labs as learning environments.Following Markauskaite and Goodyear (2017) can be said that living labs that include students bring together three discourses in their collaborative practices: a professional discourse linked to practice, a pedagogical discourse for learning structures and an accountability discourse for assessment. Each having their own artefacts and practices, and not all focused to student learning. In these situations, “[p]ractice is not always committed to more abstract student assignments […] and professionals do not always have time to work with students or feel lacking in capability to construct an assignment.”, and “[i]t is a challenge to create a shared interest besides the individual interests of the participants” (Huber et al. 2020, p. 5-6).This poster studies how student learning in living labs comes about in professional, pedagogical and assessment practices as perceived by students, lecturers and professionals.Research design, methodologySettingThis project takes place in the Social Professions Faculty of a single applied university in The Netherlands. Undergraduate students in different bachelor programs follow part of their education in labs. Seven social learning settings in two labs are analyzed in the project as a whole, this poster reports findings in the first lab with three social learning settings.The labs included in this multiple case study showed willing to improve their student learning through analysis and collaborative re-design. Labs were eligible when students had to collaborate with professionals and citizens to solve a real-life issue, as part of their education in the lab.SampleThe poster reports findings in the first case lab that consisted of three classes of 20 fourth year undergraduate students (N=60 in total) and their three lecturers (N=3). They collaborated with local community workers to improve the process of citizens making use of municipal public services, an assignment assigned by the regional ombudsman.MethodThe researcher participated in the lab team in the preparation and execution of the lab work and captured insights on reflective memo’s throughout the project. Based on evaluations of the previous year and ambitions for the coming year, adjustments were made to improve student learning and collaboration in the lab.Pre and post descriptions were captured of the professional, pedagogical and assessment practices in the lab, based on documents of educational and professional materials (e.g. study guide, assignments, meeting notes, flyer of national ombudsman), field notes and memo’s. Descriptions of the practices were checked with students, lecturers and professional partners.The perceptions of the practices of students, lecturers and professionals were collected after implementation through semi-structured interviews (N=3 lecturers; 9 students, and 3 professional partners). The interview guide focused on interviewees experiences and perceptions of their lab work, their collaboration and student learning in the lab, triangulating their perceptions of the professional, pedagogical and assessment practices and artefacts in the lab (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017).Coding and analysisIn this study, thematic analysis of the interviews is conducted (Braun & Clarke, 2022). This analysis is informed by the conceptual lens of professional practices, pedagogical practices, assessment practices, and their corresponding artefacts, in professional higher education (Markauskaite & Goodyear, 2017). Deductive coding for present and absent activities and artefacts and for the different actors’ perceptions of those activities and artefacts is complemented with inductive codes and themes.FindingsAt the time of submission, data collection in the first lab with three social learning settings is nearly finished, and implementation in a second set of four labs is work in progress. The data of the first lab will be analyzed in the period between submission and the CHER2024 conference.Practical/social implications:The proposed analysis will result in an understanding of the dynamics of practices and learning in the lab, from multiple perspectives. This understanding will be translated into design principles for balanced professional, pedagogical and assessment practices in this lab. Furthermore, this project has resulted in lab practices to improve student learning in three living labs.Originality/value of posterThis study offers a perspective on and understanding of practices and student learning in higher education living labs. It responds to a call for development of practice and research of higher education living labs, based on a review of international literature, so labs can realize the intended integration between initial learning and innovation in living labs (Griffioen & van Heijningen, 2023).Keywords: living labs, lab practices, design principles, collaboration
Horse riding falls under the “Sport for Life” disciplines, where a long-term equestrian development can provide a clear pathway of developmental stages to help individuals, inclusive of those with a disability, to pursue their goals in sport and physical activity, providing long-term health benefits. However, the biomechanical interaction between horse and (disabled) rider is not wholly understood, leaving challenges and opportunities for the horse riding sport. Therefore, the purpose of this KIEM project is to start an interdisciplinary collaboration between parties interested in integrating existing knowledge on horse and (disabled) rider interaction with any novel insights to be gained from analysing recently collected sensor data using the EquiMoves™ system. EquiMoves is based on the state-of-the-art inertial- and orientational-sensor system ProMove-mini from Inertia Technology B.V., a partner in this proposal. On the basis of analysing previously collected data, machine learning algorithms will be selected for implementation in existing or modified EquiMoves sensor hardware and software solutions. Target applications and follow-ups include: - Improving horse and (disabled) rider interaction for riders of all skill levels; - Objective evidence-based classification system for competitive grading of disabled riders in Para Dressage events; - Identifying biomechanical irregularities for detecting and/or preventing injuries of horses. Topic-wise, the project is connected to “Smart Technologies and Materials”, “High Tech Systems & Materials” and “Digital key technologies”. The core consortium of Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Rosmark Consultancy and Inertia Technology will receive feedback to project progress and outcomes from a panel of international experts (Utrecht University, Sport Horse Health Plan, University of Central Lancashire, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences), combining a strong mix of expertise on horse and rider biomechanics, veterinary medicine, sensor hardware, data analysis and AI/machine learning algorithm development and implementation, all together presenting a solid collaborative base for derived RAAK-mkb, -publiek and/or -PRO follow-up projects.
Collaborative networks for sustainability are emerging rapidly to address urgent societal challenges. By bringing together organizations with different knowledge bases, resources and capabilities, collaborative networks enhance information exchange, knowledge sharing and learning opportunities to address these complex problems that cannot be solved by organizations individually. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the apparel sector, where examples of collaborative networks for sustainability are plenty, for example Sustainable Apparel Coalition, Zero Discharge Hazardous Chemicals, and the Fair Wear Foundation. Companies like C&A and H&M but also smaller players join these networks to take their social responsibility. Collaborative networks are unlike traditional forms of organizations; they are loosely structured collectives of different, often competing organizations, with dynamic membership and usually lack legal status. However, they do not emerge or organize on their own; they need network orchestrators who manage the network in terms of activities and participants. But network orchestrators face many challenges. They have to balance the interests of diverse companies and deal with tensions that often arise between them, like sharing their innovative knowledge. Orchestrators also have to “sell” the value of the network to potential new participants, who make decisions about which networks to join based on the benefits they expect to get from participating. Network orchestrators often do not know the best way to maintain engagement, commitment and enthusiasm or how to ensure knowledge and resource sharing, especially when competitors are involved. Furthermore, collaborative networks receive funding from grants or subsidies, creating financial uncertainty about its continuity. Raising financing from the private sector is difficult and network orchestrators compete more and more for resources. When networks dissolve or dysfunction (due to a lack of value creation and capture for participants, a lack of financing or a non-functioning business model), the collective value that has been created and accrued over time may be lost. This is problematic given that industrial transformations towards sustainability take many years and durable organizational forms are required to ensure ongoing support for this change. Network orchestration is a new profession. There are no guidelines, handbooks or good practices for how to perform this role, nor is there professional education or a professional association that represents network orchestrators. This is urgently needed as network orchestrators struggle with their role in governing networks so that they create and capture value for participants and ultimately ensure better network performance and survival. This project aims to foster the professionalization of the network orchestrator role by: (a) generating knowledge, developing and testing collaborative network governance models, facilitation tools and collaborative business modeling tools to enable network orchestrators to improve the performance of collaborative networks in terms of collective value creation (network level) and private value capture (network participant level) (b) organizing platform activities for network orchestrators to exchange ideas, best practices and learn from each other, thereby facilitating the formation of a professional identity, standards and community of network orchestrators.
The textile industry is responsible for over 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 20% of the world’s wastewater, surpassing the emissions from international flights and shipping combined. In the European Union, textile purchases in 2020 led to around 270 kg of CO₂ emissions per person, yet only 1% of used clothing is recycled into new garments. The municipality of Groningen manages an estimated 950 kilotons of textile waste but is only able to collect, sort, and recycle 250 kilotons. To address these challenges, Textile Hub Groningen (THG) seeks to support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and stakeholders in creating circular textile value chains. However, designing circular value chains presents challenges, including conflicting interests, knowledge gaps on circular design principles, and inadequate tools for collaborative business model development. Potential stakeholders often find current tools too abstract and not conducive to collaboration, learning, or experimentation. As a result, circular value chains remain difficult to achieve from the perspective of individual stakeholders. Serious games have been employed to simulate and experiment with complex adaptive systems , . Research shows that well-designed playful learning enhances both learning and motivation, particularly when social elements are integrated . This project aims to answer the following research question: How can serious games be leveraged to design circular textile value chains in the region? The expected outcomes are: 1. Serious Game: Design, test, and deliver a serious game to facilitate the joint design of circular textile value chains. 2. Publications: Extract insights from the game’s design and evaluation, contributing to both academic and practical discussions. 3. Consortium for Follow-up: Mobilize partners and secure funding for future projects in related fields. Through game-based collaborative circular value chain and business model design experiences, this project overcomes barriers in designing viable circular value chains in the textile industry
