Het onderwijs voor reguliere voltijdstudenten is aan vernieuwing toe omdat de traditionele en schoolse benadering voor deze groep te beperkt is. Binnen Fontys Hogescholen is men daarom aan de slag gegaan met het ontwikkelen en aanbieden van social labs waarin het leerproces van de lerende centraal staat en niet diens output.
DOCUMENT
The workshop aims to understand how a living lab network structures contribute to system innovation. Living labs as system innovation initiatives can substantially alter established network structures. Moreover, structures can undergo alterations through subtle interventions, with impact on the overall outcomes of living labs. To understand how such change occurs, we develop a multilevel network perspective to study collaborations toward system innovation. We take this perspective to help understand living lab dynamics, drawing on innovative examples and taking into consideration the multilayered structures that the collaboration comprises.
MULTIFILE
Living labs are complex multi-stakeholder collaborations that often employ a usercentred and design-driven methodology to foster innovation. Conventional management tools fall short in evaluating them. However, some methods and tools dedicated to living labs' special characteristics and goals have already been developed. Most of them are still in their testing phase. Those tools are not easily accessible and can only be found in extensive research reports, which are difficult to dissect. Therefore, this paper reviews seven evaluation methods and tools specially developed for living labs. Each section of this paper is structured in the following manner: tool’s introduction (1), who uses the tool (2), and how it should be used (3). While the first set of tools, namely “ENoLL 20 Indicators”, “SISCODE Self-assessment”, and “SCIROCCO Exchange Tool” assess a living lab as an organisation and are diving deeper into the organisational activities and the complex context, the second set of methods and tools, “FormIT” and “Living Lab Markers”, evaluate living labs’ methodologies: the process they use to come to innovations. The paper's final section presents “CheRRIes Monitoring and Evaluation Tool” and “TALIA Indicator for Benchmarking Service for Regions”, which assess the regional impact made by living labs. As every living lab is different regarding its maturity (as an organisation and in its methodology) and the scope of impact it wants to make, the most crucial decision when evaluating is to determine the focus of the assessment. This overview allows for a first orientation on worked-out methods and on possible indicators to use. It also concludes that the existing tools are quite managerial in their method and aesthetics and calls for designers and social scientists to develop more playful, engaging and (possibly) learning-oriented tools to evaluate living labs in the future. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/overdiek12345/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/mari-genova-17a727196/?originalSubdomain=nl
DOCUMENT
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
DOCUMENT
In this paper we critically assess the attempts of the Amsterdam University of applied Sciences (AUAS) to facilitate social innovation through living labs. These living labs are seen as local innovation milieus with potential to deliver new governance arrangements making it possible to develop context specific solutions to complex and intertwined social, sustainability and economic problems that modern cities are facing. As developing new routines, relationships, positions and rules between stakeholders – central in social innovation - will require institutional change, learning, and more specifically second-order learning, are a key element of the AUAS living labs. In terms of conceptualisation this paper is exploratory in nature. We have identified trust as one of the central enabling conditions for learning and a number of issues that need to be accounted for when attempting to facilitate learning at the operational level (e.g. stakeholder involvement, the utilisation of scientific research and the end-user focus). The practice of the AUAS living labs show thechallenges that can arise when in the complex and open environment of the living lab. Of central importance are project leaders who can manage the expectations of participants while retaining focus on the needs of end-users, provide understandable insight into the causes of the issues at hand and are able to build coalitions between key actors.
DOCUMENT
Experimental Learning and Innovation Environments, such as Living Labs, Field Labs, and Urban Innovation Labs, are increasingly used to connect multi-stakeholders in envisioning, creating, experimenting, learning, and trying out novel responses to diverse societal challenges. With designers facilitating the co-creation processes that take place in these labs, the design discipline plays an important role in these experimental environments. Applied Design Research in Living Labs and other Experimental Learning and Innovation Environments combines a focus on Experimental Learning and Innovation Environments (or Living Labs) with a focus on Applied Design Research. It offers an interdisciplinary perspective by bringing together diverse stakeholders from different disciplines. The book will adopt an interdisciplinary perspective, integrating insights from design, innovation, sociology, technology, and other relevant fields. It showcases real-world examples and case studies of successful Applied Design Research in Living Labs and focuses on design dilemmas that emerge while working in these Experimental Learning and Innovation Environments. The book explores the role of various stakeholders, including the roles that may play out during the development of Experimental Learning and Innovation Environments, and goes on to discuss the balance between fixed or fluid roles of these stakeholders and the polarity between working within one specific discipline versus working with various expertise or disciplines. Designers, government representatives, and researchers who apply a living lab approach to solve multi-stakeholder challenges in various fields by applying Urban Innovation Labs, Energy Living Labs, Mobility Living Labs, Health Living Labs, Education Living Labs, or Social Living Labs will find this book of interest.
LINK
This literature review applies Wenger’s community of practice framework as a theoretical lens to generate insight about the complex collaborative processes of living labs. The authors explore this model with insights from the literature on labs and then set out to understand higher educational living labs. The findings show that current research on lab practices is limited, the field is scattered, and there is little common perspective across disciplines. The authors advocate for more research on the actual social processes. Only then can living labs hold their promise of integrating learning and innovation in higher education.
DOCUMENT
At first glance, Public Sector Innovation (PSI) Labs are gaining prominence within academic literature, the European Union (EU) and beyond. However, because of the relative newness and conceptual ambiguity of this concept, the exact contribution of these labs to theory and practice is still unclear. In addition, most research has been looking at case studies. This publication breaks new ground by elaborating on the concept and also by looking at the perception of these labs in different contexts, by comparing multiple labs in multiple countries. In doing so, we raised the question: ‘What is the perceived added value of Public Sector Innovation labs for further developing theory as well as for society?’ In order to answer this question, by way of an experiment, we combined theoretical research together with focus groups with members of the EU funded project Multi Disciplinary Innovation for Social Change (SHIINE) in combination with questionnaires to selected PSI labs, thus providing us with rich data. Our experimental methodology uncovered a conceptual bias that is probably existent in similar studies and needs to be acknowledged more. In addition, we found that PSI labs have developed over time into an amalgam of two competing concepts. To conclude, we believe that the specific potential of PSI labs as an internal space for innovation within institutions is underutilised. We believe this could be improved by acknowledging the specific aim of PSI labs in a co-creative setting between relevant stakeholders, such as Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).
DOCUMENT
Living Lab Environments (LLE) are a relative new phenomenon, especially in higher education. There is no unambiguous definition of LLE in the literature and several LLE are discussed. Where traditional education takes place in a classroom (a controlled internal environment), LLE experiments in a real-life environment with all kinds of stakeholder groups needed. For higher education, this research explores whether this form of education in practice is appropriate by mapping the success and failure factors. Interviews with coordinators of labs and their experience with these labs will provide clues for future research.
DOCUMENT
Deze publicatie is ontwikkeld door het lectoraat Communicatie, Participatie en Sociaal-Ecologisch Leren (CoPSEL) in samenwerking met partneruniversiteiten als een eindresultaat van het Invest4Excellence project. Het magazine onderzoekt de complexiteit en dynamiek van Living Labs door met een drietal metaforen (koken, reizen en Do-It-Yourself) te reflecteren op Living Labs zowel in Nederland, Europa en daarbuiten.
DOCUMENT
