This article describes the relation between mental health and academic performance during the start of college and how AI-enhanced chatbot interventions could prevent both study problems and mental health problems.
Mastering academic language (AL) by elementary school students is important for achieving school success. The extent to which teachers play a role in stimulating students’ AL development may differ. Two types of AL stimulating behavior are distinguished: aimed at students’ understanding and at triggering students’ production of AL. As mathematics requires abstract language use, AL occurs frequently. The instructional methods teachers use during mathematics instruction may offer different opportunities for AL stimulating behavior. In our first study, based on expert opinions, instructional methods were categorized according to opportunities they offer for stimulating students’ AL development. In the second study, video-observations of mathematics instruction of elementary school teachers were analyzed with respect to AL stimulating behavior and instructional methods used. Results showed that actual AL stimulating behavior of teachers corresponds to the expert opinions, except for behavior shown during task evaluation. Teachers differ in time and frequency of their use of instructional methods and therefore in opportunities for stimulating AL development. Four teaching profiles, reflecting different AL stimulating potential, were constructed: ‘teacher talking’, ‘balanced use of methods’, ‘getting students at work’ and ‘interactive teaching’. Teachers showed more types of behavior aimed at students’ AL understanding than at production.
LINK
Little has been published regarding the training of academic developers themselves to support internationalization of the curriculum (IoC) initiatives. However, higher education institutions around the globe are responding to strategic demands for IoC which prepare students as ‘world-ready’ graduates. We employed qualitative research synthesis to identify recent journal articles which consider current trends in academic development to support IoC. Despite their diversity, we found common themes in the five selected studies. Our discussion and recommendations weave these themes with Betty Leask’s five-stage model of the process of IoC and Cynthia Joseph’s call for a pedagogy of social justice. “This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal for Academic Development on 19/11/15, available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2019.1691559.
MULTIFILE
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
Supermarkets are essential urban household amenities, providing daily products, and for their social role in communities. Contrary to many other countries, including nearby ones, the Netherlands have a balanced distribution of supermarkets across villages and urban neighbourhoods. However, spatial supermarket patterns, are subject to influential developments. First, due to economies of scale, there is a tendency for supermarkets to increase their catchment areas and to disappear from peripheral villages. Second, supermarkets are now mainly located in residential areas, although the urban periphery appears to be attractive for the retail sector, perhaps including the rise of hypermarkets. Third, today, online grocery shopping is still lagging far behind on other online shopping products, but a breaks through will dilute population support for in-store supermarkets and can lead to dramatic ‘game changer’ shifts with major spatial and social effects. These three important trends will reinforce each other. Consequences are of natural community meeting places at the expense of social cohesion; reduced accessibility for daily products, leading to more travel, often by car; increasing delivery flows; real estate vacancies, and increasing suburban demand increase for retail and logistics. Expected changes in supermarket patterns require understanding, but academic literature on OGS is still scarce, and does hardly address household behaviour in changing spatial constellations. We develop likely spatial supermarket patterns, and model the consequences for travel demand, social cohesion and real estate demand, as well as the distribution between online and in-store grocery shopping, by developing a stated preference experiment, among Dutch households.
Examining in-class activities to facilitate academic achievement in higher educationThere is an increasing interest in how to create an effective and comfortable indoor environment for lecturers and students in higher education. To achieve evidence-based improvements in the indoor environmental quality (IEQ) of higher education learning environments, this research aimed to gain new knowledge for creating optimal indoor environmental conditions that best facilitate in-class activities, i.e. teaching and learning, and foster academic achievement. The academic performance of lecturers and students is subdivided into short-term academic performance, for example, during a lecture and long-term academic performance, during an academic course or year, for example. First, a systematic literature review was conducted to reveal the effect of indoor environmental quality in classrooms in higher education on the quality of teaching, the quality of learning, and students’ academic achievement. With the information gathered on the applied methods during the literature review, a systematic approach was developed and validated to capture the effect of the IEQ on the main outcomes. This approach enables research that aims to examine the effect of all four IEQ parameters, indoor air quality, thermal conditions, lighting conditions, and acoustic conditions on students’ perceptions, responses, and short-term academic performance in the context of higher education classrooms. Next, a field experiment was conducted, applying the validated systematic approach, to explore the effect of multiple indoor environmental parameters on students and their short-term academic performance in higher education. Finally, a qualitative case study gathered lecturers’ and students’ perceptions related to the IEQ. Furthermore, how these users interact with the environment to maintain an acceptable IEQ was studied.During the systematic literature review, multiple scientific databases were searched to identify relevant scientific evidence. After the screening process, 21 publications were included. The collected evidence showed that IEQ can contribute positively to students’ academic achievement. However, it can also affect the performance of students negatively, even if the IEQ meets current standards for classrooms’ IEQ conditions. Not one optimal IEQ was identified after studying the evidence. Indoor environmental conditions in which students perform at their best differ and are task depended, indicating that classrooms should facilitate multiple indoor environmental conditions. Furthermore, the evidence provides practical information for improving the design of experimental studies, helps researchers in identifying relevant parameters, and lists methods to examine the influence of the IEQ on users.The measurement methods deduced from the included studies of the literature review, were used for the development of a systematic approach measuring classroom IEQ and students’ perceived IEQ, internal responses, and short-term academic performance. This approach allowed studying the effect of multiple IEQ parameters simultaneously and was tested in a pilot study during a regular academic course. The perceptions, internal responses, and short-term academic performance of participating students were measured. The results show associations between natural variations of the IEQ and students’ perceptions. These perceptions were associated with their physiological and cognitive responses. Furthermore, students’ perceived cognitive responses were associated with their short-term academic performance. These observed associations confirm the construct validity of the composed systematic approach. This systematic approach was then applied in a field experiment, to explore the effect of multiple indoor environmental parameters on students and their short-term academic performance in higher education. A field study, with a between-groups experimental design, was conducted during a regular academic course in 2020-2021 to analyze the effect of different acoustic, lighting, and indoor air quality (IAQ) conditions. First, the reverberation time was manipulated to 0.4 s in the intervention condition (control condition 0.6 s). Second, the horizontal illuminance level was raised from 500 to 750 lx in the intervention condition (control condition 500 lx). These conditions correspond with quality class A (intervention condition) and B (control condition), specified in Dutch IEQ guidelines for school buildings (2015). Third, the IAQ, which was ~1100 ppm carbon dioxide (CO2), as a proxy for IAQ, was improved to CO2 concentrations under 800 ppm, meeting quality class A in both conditions. Students’ perceptions were measured during seven campaigns with a questionnaire; their actual cognitive and short-term academic performances were evaluated with validated tests and an academic test, composed by the lecturer, as a subject-matter-expert on the taught topic, covered subjects discussed during the lecture. From 201 students 527 responses were collected and analyzed. A reduced RT in combination with raised HI improved students’ perceptions of the lighting environment, internal responses, and quality of learning. However, this experimental condition negatively influenced students’ ability to solve problems, while students' content-related test scores were not influenced. This shows that although quality class A conditions for RT and HI improved students’ perceptions, it did not influence their short-term academic performance. Furthermore, the benefits of reduced RT in combination with raised HI were not observed in improved IAQ conditions. Whether the sequential order of the experimental conditions is relevant in inducing these effects and/or whether improving two parameters is already beneficial, is unknownFinally, a qualitative case study explored lecturers’ and students’ perceptions of the IEQ of classrooms, which are suitable to give tutorials with a maximum capacity of about 30 students. Furthermore, how lecturers and students interact with this indoor environment to maintain an acceptable IEQ was examined. Eleven lecturers of the Hanze University of Applied Sciences (UAS), located in the northern part of the Netherlands, and twenty-four of its students participated in three focus group discussions. The findings show that lecturers and students experience poor thermal, lighting, acoustic, and IAQ conditions which may influence teaching and learning performance. Furthermore, maintaining acceptable thermal and IAQ conditions was difficult for lecturers as opening windows or doors caused noise disturbances. In uncomfortable conditions, lecturers may decide to pause earlier or shorten a lecture. When students experienced discomfort, it may affect their ability to concentrate, their emotional status, and their quality of learning. Acceptable air and thermal conditions in classrooms will mitigate the need to open windows and doors. This allows lecturers to keep doors and windows closed, combining better classroom conditions with neither noise disturbances nor related distractions. Designers and engineers should take these end users’ perceptions into account, often monitored by facility management (FM), during the renovation or construction of university buildings to achieve optimal IEQ conditions in higher education classrooms.The results of these four studies indicate that there is not a one-size fits all indoor environmental quality to facilitate optimal in-class activities. Classrooms’ thermal environment should be effectively controlled with the option of a local (manual) intervention. Classrooms’ lighting conditions should also be adjustable, both in light color and light intensity. This enables lecturers to adjust the indoor environment to facilitate in-class activities optimally. Lecturers must be informed by the building operator, for example, professionals of the Facility Department, how to change classrooms’ IEQ settings. And this may differ per classroom because each building, in which the classroom is located, is operated differently apart from the classroom location in the building, exposure to the environment, and its use. The knowledge that has come available from this study, shows that optimal indoor environmental conditions can positively influence lecturers’ and students’ comfort, health, emotional balance, and performance. These outcomes have the capacity to contribute to an improved school climate and thus academic achievement.
