Modifiable (biomechanical and neuromuscular) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury risk factors have been identified in laboratory settings. These risk factors were subsequently used in ACL injury prevention measures. Due to the lack of ecological validity, the use of on-field data in the ACL injury risk screening is increasingly advocated. Though, the kinematic differences between laboratory and on-field settings have never been investigated. The aim of the present study was to investigate the lower-limb kinematics of female footballers during agility movements performed both in laboratory and football field environments. Twenty-eight healthy young female talented football (soccer) players (14.9 ± 0.9 years) participated. Lower-limb joint kinematics was collected through wearable inertial sensors (Xsens Link) in three conditions: (1) laboratory setting during unanticipated sidestep cutting at 40-50°; on the football pitch (2) football-specific exercises (F-EX) and (3) football games (F-GAME). A hierarchical two-level random effect model in Statistical Parametric Mapping was used to compare joint kinematics among the conditions. Waveform consistency was investigated through Pearson's correlation coefficient and standardized z-score vector. In-lab kinematics differed from the on-field ones, while the latter were similar in overall shape and peaks. Lower sagittal plane range of motion, greater ankle eversion, and pelvic rotation were found for on-field kinematics (p < 0.044). The largest differences were found during landing and weight acceptance. The biomechanical differences between lab and field settings suggest the application of context-related adaptations in female footballers and have implications in ACL injury prevention strategies. Highlights: Talented youth female football players showed kinematical differences between the lab condition and the on-field ones, thus adopting a context-related motor strategy. Lower sagittal plane range of motion, greater ankle eversion, and pelvic rotation were found on the field. Such differences pertain to the ACL injury mechanism and prevention strategies. Preventative training should support the adoption of non-linear motor learning to stimulate greater self-organization and adaptability. It is recommended to test football players in an ecological environment to improve subsequent primary ACL injury prevention programmes.
DOCUMENT
Amsterdam as a lab. That is what Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences' three fieldlabs and its many partners have in mind. Functional illiteracy, debts, learning deficiencies or problems caused by extreme precipitation: the city contains plenty of tough issues, demanding novel approaches in which co-creation and participation by residents, social organizations and knowledge institutions are basic principles.In the fieldlabs, people try to change current practices by working with, instead of for or on behalf of those whom it concerns. But how to achieve effective learning environments between parties? How to encourage stakeholder participation in complex issues? And how to build new relations and roles?
DOCUMENT
Described are the results of an investigation in the appreciation of distance learning, limited to a case study with an online lab-experiment. Together with other educational institutes and companies Fontys University of Applied Sciences participated in a number of projects in which distance learning courses were developed. Some courses have been integrated in the regular curriculum. Our study was set up to get insight into the appreciation of students for this way of learning, especially concerning online lab-experiments. By using surveys and interviews after the students accomplished either a regular course or a distance learning course on the same object we tried to get a better understanding of how students used the course and appreciated it. Also we wanted to know whether an online lab-experiment is more or less effective than a regular one. Preliminary data analyses have shown that the appreciation of an online lab-experiment is dependent on a number of items, like the educational contents of the experiment itself, the way accompanying theory is presented, possibilities of doing the experiment in an alternative way, the organization around the experiment etc. It appears also that students give serious suggestions on developing other online lab-experiments.
DOCUMENT
Over the last decade, sport and physical activity have become increasingly recognised and implemented as tools to foster social cohesion in neighbourhoods, cities and communities around Europe. As a result, numerous programmes have emerged that attempt to enhance social cohesion through a variety of sport-based approaches (Moustakas, Sanders, Schlenker, & Robrade, 2021; Svensson & Woods, 2017). However, despite this boom in sport and social cohesion, current definitions and understandings of social cohesion rarely take into account the needs, expectations or views of practitioners, stakeholders and, especially, participants on the ground (Raw, Sherry, & Rowe, 2021). Yet, to truly foster broad social outcomes like social cohesion, there is increasing recognition that programmes must move beyond interventions that only focus on the individual level, and instead find ways to work with and engage a wide array of stakeholders and organisations (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011; Moustakas, 2022). In turn, this allows programmes to respond to community needs, foster engagement, deliver more sustainable outcomes, and work at both the individual and institutional levels. The Living Lab concept - which is distinguished by multi-stakeholder involvement, user engagement, innovation and co-creation within a real-life setting - provides an innovative approach to help achieve these goals. More formally, Living Labs have been defined as “user-centred, open innovation ecosystems based on a systematic user co-creation approach, integrating research and innovation processes in real-life communities and settings” (European Network of Living Labs, 2021). Thus, this can be a powerful approach to engage a wide array of stakeholders, and create interventions that are responsive to community needs. As such, the Sport for Social Cohesion Lab (SSCL) project was conceived to implement a Living Lab approach within five sport for social cohesion programmes in four different European countries. This approach was chosen to help programmes directly engage programme participants, generate understanding of the elements that promote social cohesion in a sport setting and to co-create activities and tools to explore, support and understand social cohesion within these communities. The following toolkit reflects our multi-national experiences designing and implementing Living Labs across these various contexts. Our partners represent a variety of settings, from schools to community-based organisations, and together these experiences can provide valuable insights to other sport (and non-sport) organisations wishing to implement a Living Lab approach within their contexts and programmes. Thus, practitioners and implementers of community-based programmes should be understood as the immediate target group of this toolkit, though the insights and reflections included here can be of relevance for any individual or organisation seeking to use more participatory approaches within their work. In particular, in the coming sections, this toolkit will define the Living Lab concept more precisely, suggest some steps to launch a Living Lab, and offer insights on how to implement the different components of a Living Lab.
DOCUMENT
poster voor de EuSoMII Annual Meeting in Pisa, Italië in oktober 2023. PURPOSE & LEARNING OBJECTIVE Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies are gaining popularity for their ability to autonomously perform tasks and mimic human reasoning [1, 2]. Especially within the medical industry, the implementation of AI solutions has seen an increasing pace [3]. However, the field of radiology is not yet transformed with the promised value of AI, as knowledge on the effective use and implementation of AI is falling behind due to a number of causes: 1) Reactive/passive modes of learning are dominant 2) Existing developments are fragmented 3) Lack of expertise and differing perspectives 4) Lack of effective learning space Learning communities can help overcome these problems and address the complexities that come with human-technology configurations [4]. As the impact of a technology is dependent on its social management and implementation processes [5], our research question then becomes: How do we design, configure, and manage a Learning Community to maximize the impact of AI solutions in medicine?
DOCUMENT
Moral food lab: Transforming the food system with crowd-sourced ethics
LINK
Described are the results of a study that was set up to get insight into the appreciation of students for distance learning, especially concerning online lab-experiments. We wanted to know whether an online lab-experiment is more or less effective than a regular one and how it can be used in IPD-projects. Preliminary data analyses have shown that the appreciation of an online lab-experiment is dependent on a number of items, like the educational contents of the experiment itself, the way accompanying theory is presented, possibilities of doing the experiment in an alternative way, the organization around the experiment etc. It appears also that students give serious suggestions on developing other online lab-experiments and the way to use it in IPD-projects. A description is given of the web-based experiment "cube measurement", which is carried out using a remotely operated robot and image processing functions. The students' appreciation is discussed and suggestions are given on how comparable experiments can contribute to work in an IPD environment.
DOCUMENT
This report presents research on success factors of learning communities with a case study of the Innovation Lab Hanze International Business Office (further – Innovation Lab HIBO) at Hanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen, the Netherlands. The research project is a part of the broader research programme on innovation of education and the success factors of learning communities carried on by a number of researchers at Hanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen (further – Hanze University AS).In answering the main research question on success factors of learning communities and, specifically, the Innovation Lab HIBO, two sub-questions were formulated: the first deals with school level expectations about the Innovation Lab HIBO, whereas the second explores what are the institutional expectations and guidelines regarding living labs at Hanze University AS. The research focus is on formalised expectations about the goals and outcomes of living labs, as attaining the established goals and outcomes would testimony a successful activity of a living lab. The factors that facilitate or determine whether the goalsand outcomes of living labs are achieved are therefore the success factors.The analysis of both school level expectations about the Innovation Lab HIBO and the institutional expectations and guidelines regarding living labs reveals a number of success factors, conditions, and preconditions. As these do not coincide, it is argued that finding the right balance between local, school level, expectations and the institutional goals is crucial for the successful performance of living labs. Another important factor for successful performance of the living lab and, specifically the Innovation Lab HIBO, is development of a learning community. This process would require strengthening of an open organisationalculture and facilitation of exchange of ideas and learning process.The research project was carried on in the period from February 1, 2020, till August 30, 2020. From September 2020 the follow up research is planned into operationalization of success factors, definition of performance criteria, performance evaluation, development of suggestions for improvement of performance, and development of a blueprint for the establishment of innovation labs.
DOCUMENT
The field of city logistics can be characterized by its many local demonstrations and trials, that are quite often not lasting longer than the trial period. The number of demonstrations that continued and were implemented in daily practice is limited. Freight partnerships proved to be a good first step to engage stakeholders. This contribution proposes a new way to develop a more action-driven form of these partnerships that follows from a solution approach, which has proved successful worldwide in fostering innovation deployment, but has not yet been applied explicitly in the domain of City Logistics: Living Labs. The living lab approach ensures that the stakeholders are involved much earlier in the in planning and implementation processes, and that the proposed city logistics implementation is revised and continuously improved to meet stakeholder needs and obtain maximum impact for a long time. This contribution summarizes the steps that have to be taken to set-up and work in a city logistics living lab (CLLL). A CLLL can be defined as a dynamic test environment where complex city logistics innovations can be implemented, following a cyclical approach, where several solutions can be experimented and re-adjusted or improved to fit the real-life city challenges. In the Horizon 2020 project CITYLAB, we developed practical guidelines for establishing and running a city logistics living lab based on several living lab- and field test methodologies that enables stakeholders to set-up and run a CLLL. This contribution discusses the most important CLLL phases, roles, and characteristics, as well as the tools that are available. Next, this contribution shows the first results of cities in which CLLLs are actually set up, or already running. © 2016 The Authors.
MULTIFILE
In steden ontstaan steeds vaker coalities waarin wijkprofessionals samen met burgers, onderzoekers en lokale ondernemers werken aan lokale kansen en oplossingen voor weerbarstige vraagstukken. Stadslabs zijn hierbij een veel gebruikte werkvorm waarvan veel wordt verwacht. Uit de praktijk weten we echter dat het samenwerken binnen een stadslab vaak gepaard gaat met ingewikkelde vragen en dilemma’s. Er is nog veel onduidelijk over de beste werkwijzen voor labs, er is onzekerheid over de meerwaarde voor betrokkenen en er zijn vragen over de (door)werking van lab-werkwijzen in de praktijk. Over deze onderwerpen gaat het onderzoek De Stad als Lab, waar dit magazine op is gebaseerd. Stadslab zijn overal anders, maar betrokkenen worstelen wel met dezelfde vragen en dilemma’s, zoals ‘Wat is nu precies een stadslab en waarvoor valt het in te zetten?’, ‘Hoe organiseer ik gelijkwaardige vormen van samenwerking terwijl ik zelf in een hiërarchische omgeving werk?’, ‘Welke kennis moet ik inzetten bij het ontwerpen van een stadslab?’Voor al die professionals die dagelijks met elkaar en bewoners proberen de stad een beetje mooier, beter en sterker te maken, is dit magazine gemaakt.
LINK
