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
Leren met Toekomstscenario’s is een breed toepasbare werkvorm voor het hoger onderwijs die ontwikkeld is in het kader van een project van de Digitale Universiteit. De DU is een samenwerkingsverband van hogescholen en universiteiten dat zich richt op onderwijsvernieuwingen en transformatie van opleidingen mede door de inzet van ICT-middelen. Het project Leren met Toekomstscenario’s is een samenwerking van de Hogeschool van Amsterdam, de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam en de Hogeschool InHolland. Doel van het project is tweeledig: het uitwerken van de scenariomethode tot een didactische werkvorm voor het hoger onderwijs en het verkennen van mogelijkheden om de methode te ondersteunen met behulp van ICT-toepassingen. Het project is gestart in februari 2005 en sluit af in oktober 2006. De methode is in die periode in verschillende pilots uitgevoerd op de Universiteit van Amsterdam, Hogeschool van Amsterdam en Fontys Hogescholen. De pilots zijn ondersteund door de website www.scenarioleren.nl en andere digitale middelen. Onderdeel A beschrijft de scenariomethode in brede zin. De methode vindt zijn oorsprong in het bedrijfsleven waar het vooral ingezet wordt als strategisch instrument. Binnen het hoger onderwijs kan de methode echter ook ingezet worden als leer- en reflectie-instrument. Onderdeel B geeft een verdieping met betrekking tot de bijdrage die de scenariomethode kan leveren aan het leren van mensen.Onderdeel C is het meest uitgebreid en bevat een stap-voor-stap handleiding voor begeleiders die de methode willen gebruiken in het hoger onderwijs. Onderdeel D beschrijft op welke wijze de methode ondersteund kan worden met ICT. De methode leent zich goed voor vormen van blended learning. Onderdelen E en F sluiten deze publicatie
The After-Action Review (AAR) in Virtual Reality (VR) training for police provides new opportunities to enhance learning. We investigated whether perspectives (bird’s eye & police officer, bird’s eye & suspect, bird’s eye) and line of fire displayed in the AAR impacted the officers’ learning efficacy. A 3 x 2 ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of AAR perspectives. Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed that using a bird’s eye view in combination with the suspect perspective elicits significantly greater learning efficacy compared to using a bird’s eye view alone. Using the line of fire feature did not influence learning efficacy. Our findings show that the use of the suspect perspective during the AAR in VR training can support the learning efficacy of police officers.Practitioner summary: VR systems possess After-Action Review tools that provide objective performance feedback. This study found that reviewing a VR police training scenario from the bird’s eye view in combination with the suspect perspective enhanced police officers’ learning efficacy. Designing and applying the After-Action Review effectively can improve learning efficacy in VR.
