Search

Universities and their changing role in society is a source of perennial debate. In this article, we examine the emergent phenomenon of University Campus Living Labs (UCLL), the set of practices by which universities use their own buildings, streets or energy infrastructure as experimental settings in order to support applied teaching, research and co-creation with society. While most existing studies of UCLLs focus on them as sustainability instruments, we explore the UCLL phenomenon from an open-ended and fresh angle. Using living labs in five European universities as exemplary cases, we demonstrate the breadth and variability of this emerging phenomenon through five analytical dimensions to unpack the multiple forms and purposes that UCLLs can have. We furthermore consider aspects of inclusiveness and situatedness of living lab co-creation and testing and what the UCLL phenomena may come to mean for the continuously changing university, calling for future studies to substantiate these aspects.

Op vele plaatsen in het hoger onderwijs vinden initiatieven plaats om onderwijs en leren te vernieuwen. Doel van dit onderzoek is meer kennis te verwerven over het leren, ontwikkelen en professionaliseren van HO-docenten in de context van onderwijsinnovaties. Daartoe zijn een literatuurstudie verricht naar 68 wetenschappelijke artikelen, een casestudie naar 33 praktijken, en verdiepende casestudies bij acht casussen naar leerprocessen, leeropbrengsten, ervaren ondersteuning, zelfregulatie en eigenaarschap van docenten. De resultaten lieten zien dat professionaliseren en leren binnen de context van onderwijsinnovaties leidt tot belangrijke en grote veranderingen bij docenten. Docenten ontwikkelden zich met betrekking tot innovatieve onderwijsvormen, leiderschap, andere manieren van werken, professionele identiteit of veranderende rollen. Deze opbrengsten kwamen meestal niet tot stand door enkelvoudige activiteiten, maar eerder door een combinatie van professionaliserings- en leeractiviteiten. Vaak was er sprake van een vorm van samenwerking en voldoende lange duur, en droegen voldoende tijd, ondersteuning en de rol van begeleiders positief bij. Uit het onderzoek kwamen ook drie typen relaties tussen onderwijsinnovaties en het professionaliseren van docenten naar voren: (1) het implementeren van nieuw onderwijs is het doel en de professionalisering is een middel om dit bereiken; (2) de professionele ontwikkeling van docenten is het doel en de hieruit voortvloeiende innovaties zijn een bijproduct; en (3) het stimuleren van innovaties is het doel en de professionele ontwikkeling van docenten is een nevenopbrengst. De benodigde expertise, de wijze waarop docenten leren, hoe ze werden ondersteund in hun leren en de rol van congruentie, eigenaarschap en zelfregulatie bleken sterk samen te hangen met deze typen. Tenslotte worden de bijdragen van het onderzoek aan theorievorming over het leren van docenten geïdentificeerd, beperkingen van het onderzoek besproken, suggesties, Op vele plaatsen in het hoger onderwijs vinden initiatieven plaats om onderwijs en leren te vernieuwen. Doel van dit onderzoek is meer kennis te verwerven over het leren, ontwikkelen en professionaliseren van HO-docenten in de context van onderwijsinnovaties. Daartoe zijn een literatuurstudie verricht naar 68 wetenschappelijke artikelen, een casestudie naar 33 praktijken, en verdiepende casestudies bij acht casussen naar leerprocessen, leeropbrengsten, ervaren ondersteuning, zelfregulatie en eigenaarschap van docenten. De resultaten lieten zien dat professionaliseren en leren binnen de context van onderwijsinnovaties leidt tot belangrijke en grote veranderingen bij docenten. Docenten ontwikkelden zich met betrekking tot innovatieve onderwijsvormen, leiderschap, andere manieren van werken, professionele identiteit of veranderende rollen. Deze opbrengsten kwamen meestal niet tot stand door enkelvoudige activiteiten, maar eerder door een combinatie van professionaliserings- en leeractiviteiten. Vaak was er sprake van een vorm van samenwerking en voldoende lange duur, en droegen voldoende tijd, ondersteuning en de rol van begeleiders positief bij. Uit het onderzoek kwamen ook drie typen relaties tussen onderwijsinnovaties en het professionaliseren van docenten naar voren: (1) het implementeren van nieuw onderwijs is het doel en de professionalisering is een middel om dit bereiken; (2) de professionele ontwikkeling van docenten is het doel en de hieruit voortvloeiende innovaties zijn een bijproduct; en (3) het stimuleren van innovaties is het doel en de professionele ontwikkeling van docenten is een nevenopbrengst. De benodigde expertise, de wijze waarop docenten leren, hoe ze werden ondersteund in hun leren en de rol van congruentie, eigenaarschap en zelfregulatie bleken sterk samen te hangen met deze typen. Tenslotte worden de bijdragen van het onderzoek aan theorievorming over het leren van docenten geïdentificeerd, beperkingen van het onderzoek besproken, suggesties

Current research on the train boarding process focuses predominantly on the physical modelling of pedestrian dynamics and situational characteristics such as platform design. Little psychology is involved in this approach even though individual behavior is a major factor in influencing dwell times. We take a systematic psychological approach to estimate whether parameters like pedestrian speed, area available per pedestrian, and interpersonal distance show variation at the microscopic level (individual variation), macroscopic level (situational variation), or both. Analyzing real-life train (de)boarding events (n = 3728) at a specific location at a Dutch train station, we find that boarders’ speed varies more at the microscopic (individual variation) than the macroscopic level. This behavior could thus result from stable aspects of the situation such as some structural feature of the environment or a social norm. Understanding such variation is helpful in designing behavioral interventions/nudges. If variation is due to individual differences, then an individual-targeted intervention will be most effective. If variation is due to situational differences, then individual-targeted interventions may not be particularly useful, and nudges targeted at crowds or environmental features may be most effective.

Higher education (HE) is engaged in a variety of educational innovations, as well as professional development initiatives (PDIs) to support teachers in attaining the required expertise. To improve teacher professional learning and development (PLD) and innovation processes, it is important to understand whether, how and why different PLD practices work for different innovations, contexts and populations. However, research is characterized by descriptive, single case studies and lacks a common framework to relate research findings. To address this shortcoming, this study collected and compared a wide variety of cases to develop a typology of practices. The results showed that educational innovations and teacher PLD were typically configured in three ways: (1) the focus is on implementing a new form of education and teacher learning is used as a means to this end, (2) the focus is on teachers’ professional learning and the educational innovations are spin-offs, and (3) the focus is on stimulating innovations and teacher learning is a side-effect. These types of configurations differed regarding the educational innovation, required teacher expertise, professional development initiatives, teacher learning, and outcome measures. The typology serves as a framework that may help to reflect on practices, bridge disciplines, and formulate hypotheses for future research.

Students in Challenge-based learning (CBL) courses work in multidisciplinary groups to develop a solution to an open-ended and ill-defined challenge.Thus, in CBL, students need to regulate their learning individually and collectively to learn. Socially shared regulation of learning (SSRL) refers to the development of collective and co-constructed task perceptions or shared goals by multiple students working as a group. Existing knowledge about conceptualizing and researching SSRL in CBL is currently lacking. In this paper, we provide evidence from a qualitative study we conducted in a CBL course, using analysis of individual learning portfolios and in-depth interviews about students’ perceptions of SRRL. We discuss, firstly, which individual characteristics students perceive as important for SSRL. Secondly, we discuss the identified processes of SSRL identified in our data. Finally, we discuss how groups with high and low SSRL differ. For example, groups with high SSRL spend more time in task planning and role division. They also discussed shared goals early in the process and frequently monitored and evaluated their collective work and progress. On the other hand, groups with low SSRL need guidance individually and as a group to plan and evaluate their activities in different project stages. In addition, they had fewer conversations as a group about their shared goals, and they had more difficulties getting along at a social level. Finally, theoretical implications, practical recommendations, and future directions for research are discussed.

Bruno Latour’s “practical climatoscepticism” expresses our moral inhibition with respect to the climate crisis. In spite of Clive Hamilton’s claim that the Anthropocene condition requires us to be suspicious of all previous (i.e. Holocene) ontologies, we propose a threefold Anthropocene ontological structure inspired by non-axial Buddhist elements. In the ontological field, the overall domain in which meaning is searched for, the Buddhist relationalist view on existence can nurture post-humanist philosophies. For the ontological home, one’s specific position and responsibilities, the Buddhist concept “dharma-position” can feed into Hamilton’s “new anthropocentrism.” For the ontological path, the ideal qualities of our interactions, the Buddhist “brahmaviharas” can lend functional structure to the tensions between philosophies of radical acceptance and engaged action. We discuss how this threefold ontological structure provides partial answers to Latour’s “practical climatoscepticism” and Hamilton’s no-analogue world. We sketch avenues for investigation for various Anthropocene ontologies.

Academic entrepreneurship is a contentious university activity, but there is little engagement in the relevant literature with the idea of the university itself. References and assumptions about the role of universities in society are barely made explicit even though the centuries-old development of the idea of the university carries great insights. In this paper, we consider some of the deep tensions between instrumentalist and idealist views about the role of universities and argue that there is space for academic entrepreneurship, not merely as an add-on, but as an integral part of university activity. By formulating a research-oriented vision of academic entrepreneurship, we hope to guard the university from the dominance of other interests and goals and thus argue that an attractive form of academic entrepreneurship is possible.

The three-tenet model, which focuses on ‘distributional justice’, ‘procedural justice’, and ‘justice as recognition’, has emerged as the most influential framework in the field of energy justice. Based on critical reviews of the three-tenet model, we identify three challenges that the model currently still faces: (i) a normative challenge on the grounding of the three-tenet model in philosophical theories; (ii) an ‘elite’ challenge on the justification of the use of power in energy-related decision; and (iii) a practical challenge on the application of the three tenets in situations of conflicting justice demands. In this article, we provide the basic contours of a three-step pluralist and pragmatic dialogue model for questions of energy justice that addresses the three challenges, based on the ‘commonwealth model’ of Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot. The model proposes to create moral legitimacy in the face of plural demands for energy justice by engaging actors in an inclusive dialogue based on an explicit recognition of Boltanski and Thévenot’s commonwealth model. We thereby make three contributions to the existing literature on energy justice. First, the commonwealth model’s rootedness in normative political theory provides a stronger philosophical underpinning than was available up till now in the literature (challenge 1). Second, it allows one to go beyond the (almost exclusive) focus on injustices perpetrated on disempowered or marginalised groups, to include questions on the justified exercise of power (challenge 2). Third, the commonwealth model shows us practical ways out of situations where conflicting demands for justice are being made (challenge 3).