the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 05 Oct 2021
The University Campus as a Learning Environment: the role of a Campus-based Living Lab in a Blended Teaching and Learning Environment
Abstract. “Living Labs” provide stakeholders with an authentic and spontaneous environment in which innovations and technologies can be developed. This paper highlights the use of Living Labs as an educational teaching and learning environment. We give examples of practice currently used and present a conceptual framework for pedagogic design of activities and assessment in a Living Lab environment. The examples provided are based around current HE under/post-graduate taught assessment and activities. We suggest that Living Labs, particularly campus based Living Labs, are an excellent opportunity for education providers to provide experiences for students that are realistic, promote empowerment of students, and are spontaneous, promoting student inclusivity and sustainability. Living Labs can introduce opportunities for inter- and transdisciplinarity and cross-cultural working and can provide an excellent base for education for sustainability.
- Preprint
(1469 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on gc-2021-32', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Nov 2021
Dear Authors,
Thanks for the opportunity to read and review your work on living-labs. The papers case studies and framework for using a living-lab will be of interest to educators and practitioners in the field. Although I am supportive of the paper and can see its potential, I do have some comments and suggestions that I outline below. These are intended to make the paper stronger, not detract you from sharing your work in this area.
1. Living Labs - There is a short definition of living labs in the introduction and a broader discussion later in the introduction. I feel this needs to be expanded. The initial definition you use Hossain et al (2019) contains a number of discrete elements, space, societal challenge and stakeholder involvement. However, it is hard to see the explicit links between all of the case studies and this definition alone, a broader discussion on living labs, encompassing other viewpoints may address this. For example, why is the drone case study simple not a outdoor practical / field work? what make it distinctively a living lab? I think the difference between living labs and other pedagogical approach that take place outside (field work /practical’s) is one to emphasis.
2. Case studies - On their own the case studies are all of interest, but they are also all feel quite different narratively. The comment above (comment one) applies here about making sure the 'living lab' elements are specifically identified, for example what is the societal challenge in the drone and crime scene case studies. The case studies seem to have varying approaches to the amount of detail they include on the approach / activity (such as between case studies 2 and 4), it would probably enhance readability to be a little more consistent here. It is not always clear what the situational context of these case studies are they incurricula / extracurricula? are they assessed formally (noting the emphasis on authentic assessment in the introduction). Finally, there appears to be a very strong emphasis on skill development in several of the case studies, if this is indeed a major purpose for their use. I feel that this not fully explored in the introduction or discussion.
3. Framework - The discussion includes a framework for the use living labs. These are framed as a series of questions. I would suggest that this is either not presented as a framework or adapted. Firstly, as this is presumably the authors work some commentary on the pedagogic development of this framework would be useful. Secondly seeing it applied to the case studies in question would also help the reader understand its execution, at present the questions you are ask are not explicit in all the case studies. It is possible these could be introduced before the case studies as the conceptual framework you used in their design.
4. Principles - Linked to the above, you introduce the living lab principles in the introduction. As well the direct expression of these in the case studies (see previous comment) how do these principles inform / feed into your case study design (explicitly) and then how to they link to the framework?
5. Discussion - The discussion moves to some broader discussions about design and the framework, but I feel there is lots more to be unpicked here. Firstly, the authentic assessment narrative and learning lab principles from the introduction are not explored fully in the discussion. There is some links to the individual case studies, but I feel there is more to discuss here, for example case study uses PBL and flipped-classrooms how does the intersection of these pedagogies apply to a living labs context. I feel more critical evaluation of the living lab examples would be useful for the reader. Finally beginning line 415 is very Keele specific can this be generalised for a wider readership and, the paragraph beginning line 492 feel disconnected from the living lab discussion that precedes it.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-32-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Steven Rogers, 17 Jan 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on gc-2021-32', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jan 2022
Thanks for the opportunity to review this work. The paper presents Living Labs as an important pedagogical tool for higher education learning, outlines strategies for framing activities following this approach, and provide examples of activities carried out in a living lab environment at Keele University since 2006. While the authors introduced the concept of “living labs” thoroughly and provide interesting examples to show how it can be used in education, they do not investigate the concept of living labs or any of the mentioned activities vigorously, and therefore, do not report substantial new results and conclusions. The manuscript, in its current form, reads like a report on “living labs” and not like a scientific investigation of “living labs”.
To improve this study and make it publishable in GC, I encourage the authors to consider:
- Carrying out a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the living lab concept. For example, consider evaluating one or two of the activities already mentioned in the paper for their effectiveness in teaching and learning of specific concepts. Consider comparing them with other forms of “outdoor” activities such as fieldwork or educational fieldtrips.
- For each case studies, include the accompanying data, methodology, results, and discussion of results, and consider taking an analytical approach to synthesize the individual case studies into a framework. I also agree with Anonymous Referee #1 that the framework should be applied to the case studies to show readers how to use it.
I also have a few minor edits and comments, all listed below.
Line 12 – Spell out high education once in the paper (HE)
Line 42 – Please give 1-2 examples (with references) of the innovations that provide platforms for efficient/effective learning environments.
Line 128 – When using terms such as “our student body” and “we”, are you referring to a specific group of people or are you using these terms more generally? From how this is written, I take the former to be true. Also, the reference (Ofs, 2020) does not appear in the reference list.
Line 134 – Check grammar: “…are well documented…”
Line 144 – Informal language, consider revision: “…the experiment/test isn't compromised…” – change to “the experiment is not compromised” – same issue in line 537
Line 149 – check grammar: “…but lends itself moreover to effectively transdisciplinary working…”
Table 1 should appear earlier (page 4, for example).
Line 190 – Define FHEQ – not everyone is familiar with this abbreviation. Same with MJCA in line 191. All abbreviations should be defined at least once in the paper.
Line 390 – Not clear why this case study is called “COVID-19 fieldwork” when the actual topic is Climate Change.
Line 515 – “Education in these areas…” which areas? Needs clarification.
Line 533 – Give 2-3 examples of the inclusivity/diversity issues mentioned in this sentence.
Line 535 – The sentence needs a verb.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-32-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Steven Rogers, 17 Jan 2022
-
RC3: 'Comment on gc-2021-32', Anonymous Referee #3, 27 Jan 2022
Thank you for the opportunity to read your work. For the most part I found this to be a well-presented account of the Living Labs that have been developed at Keele University, which was well structured and engaged with the appropriate literature.
However, at the moment I do not feel that this manuscript is ready for publication in Geoscience Communication. The main reason for this is that the work that is presented here is very descriptive. There is little formal reflection, and it is also unclear what the ‘success’ or impact of the programme of activities has had on both the student and the staff that have been involved in these labs to date. As such, while it is interesting to read about these initiatives, it is unclear how they are advancing the field, and also how (and why) others might adopt such an approach at their own institutions.
I would strongly encourage the authors to revisit this work and to conduct a detailed study with the students and staff that were involved in these programmes to assess their feedback and evaluate the impact of the Living Labs. The results of these surveys could then be used to contextualise the impact that these Living Labs are having and would also help to move the findings of the current work from beyond anecdotal evidence to something more formalised. The results from such a survey (or focus group or series of interviews) could also be used to frame the labs and to present a series of recommendations for the development of future activities at both Keele University and beyond.
I hope that these comments are not too disheartening, as it is really interesting to hear about the work that is being done in these Living Labs. With further reflection, evidence, and framing I believe that this work will be of great value to the wider Geoscience Communication community.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-32-RC3 - AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Steven Rogers, 07 Feb 2022
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on gc-2021-32', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Nov 2021
Dear Authors,
Thanks for the opportunity to read and review your work on living-labs. The papers case studies and framework for using a living-lab will be of interest to educators and practitioners in the field. Although I am supportive of the paper and can see its potential, I do have some comments and suggestions that I outline below. These are intended to make the paper stronger, not detract you from sharing your work in this area.
1. Living Labs - There is a short definition of living labs in the introduction and a broader discussion later in the introduction. I feel this needs to be expanded. The initial definition you use Hossain et al (2019) contains a number of discrete elements, space, societal challenge and stakeholder involvement. However, it is hard to see the explicit links between all of the case studies and this definition alone, a broader discussion on living labs, encompassing other viewpoints may address this. For example, why is the drone case study simple not a outdoor practical / field work? what make it distinctively a living lab? I think the difference between living labs and other pedagogical approach that take place outside (field work /practical’s) is one to emphasis.
2. Case studies - On their own the case studies are all of interest, but they are also all feel quite different narratively. The comment above (comment one) applies here about making sure the 'living lab' elements are specifically identified, for example what is the societal challenge in the drone and crime scene case studies. The case studies seem to have varying approaches to the amount of detail they include on the approach / activity (such as between case studies 2 and 4), it would probably enhance readability to be a little more consistent here. It is not always clear what the situational context of these case studies are they incurricula / extracurricula? are they assessed formally (noting the emphasis on authentic assessment in the introduction). Finally, there appears to be a very strong emphasis on skill development in several of the case studies, if this is indeed a major purpose for their use. I feel that this not fully explored in the introduction or discussion.
3. Framework - The discussion includes a framework for the use living labs. These are framed as a series of questions. I would suggest that this is either not presented as a framework or adapted. Firstly, as this is presumably the authors work some commentary on the pedagogic development of this framework would be useful. Secondly seeing it applied to the case studies in question would also help the reader understand its execution, at present the questions you are ask are not explicit in all the case studies. It is possible these could be introduced before the case studies as the conceptual framework you used in their design.
4. Principles - Linked to the above, you introduce the living lab principles in the introduction. As well the direct expression of these in the case studies (see previous comment) how do these principles inform / feed into your case study design (explicitly) and then how to they link to the framework?
5. Discussion - The discussion moves to some broader discussions about design and the framework, but I feel there is lots more to be unpicked here. Firstly, the authentic assessment narrative and learning lab principles from the introduction are not explored fully in the discussion. There is some links to the individual case studies, but I feel there is more to discuss here, for example case study uses PBL and flipped-classrooms how does the intersection of these pedagogies apply to a living labs context. I feel more critical evaluation of the living lab examples would be useful for the reader. Finally beginning line 415 is very Keele specific can this be generalised for a wider readership and, the paragraph beginning line 492 feel disconnected from the living lab discussion that precedes it.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-32-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Steven Rogers, 17 Jan 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on gc-2021-32', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jan 2022
Thanks for the opportunity to review this work. The paper presents Living Labs as an important pedagogical tool for higher education learning, outlines strategies for framing activities following this approach, and provide examples of activities carried out in a living lab environment at Keele University since 2006. While the authors introduced the concept of “living labs” thoroughly and provide interesting examples to show how it can be used in education, they do not investigate the concept of living labs or any of the mentioned activities vigorously, and therefore, do not report substantial new results and conclusions. The manuscript, in its current form, reads like a report on “living labs” and not like a scientific investigation of “living labs”.
To improve this study and make it publishable in GC, I encourage the authors to consider:
- Carrying out a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the living lab concept. For example, consider evaluating one or two of the activities already mentioned in the paper for their effectiveness in teaching and learning of specific concepts. Consider comparing them with other forms of “outdoor” activities such as fieldwork or educational fieldtrips.
- For each case studies, include the accompanying data, methodology, results, and discussion of results, and consider taking an analytical approach to synthesize the individual case studies into a framework. I also agree with Anonymous Referee #1 that the framework should be applied to the case studies to show readers how to use it.
I also have a few minor edits and comments, all listed below.
Line 12 – Spell out high education once in the paper (HE)
Line 42 – Please give 1-2 examples (with references) of the innovations that provide platforms for efficient/effective learning environments.
Line 128 – When using terms such as “our student body” and “we”, are you referring to a specific group of people or are you using these terms more generally? From how this is written, I take the former to be true. Also, the reference (Ofs, 2020) does not appear in the reference list.
Line 134 – Check grammar: “…are well documented…”
Line 144 – Informal language, consider revision: “…the experiment/test isn't compromised…” – change to “the experiment is not compromised” – same issue in line 537
Line 149 – check grammar: “…but lends itself moreover to effectively transdisciplinary working…”
Table 1 should appear earlier (page 4, for example).
Line 190 – Define FHEQ – not everyone is familiar with this abbreviation. Same with MJCA in line 191. All abbreviations should be defined at least once in the paper.
Line 390 – Not clear why this case study is called “COVID-19 fieldwork” when the actual topic is Climate Change.
Line 515 – “Education in these areas…” which areas? Needs clarification.
Line 533 – Give 2-3 examples of the inclusivity/diversity issues mentioned in this sentence.
Line 535 – The sentence needs a verb.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-32-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Steven Rogers, 17 Jan 2022
-
RC3: 'Comment on gc-2021-32', Anonymous Referee #3, 27 Jan 2022
Thank you for the opportunity to read your work. For the most part I found this to be a well-presented account of the Living Labs that have been developed at Keele University, which was well structured and engaged with the appropriate literature.
However, at the moment I do not feel that this manuscript is ready for publication in Geoscience Communication. The main reason for this is that the work that is presented here is very descriptive. There is little formal reflection, and it is also unclear what the ‘success’ or impact of the programme of activities has had on both the student and the staff that have been involved in these labs to date. As such, while it is interesting to read about these initiatives, it is unclear how they are advancing the field, and also how (and why) others might adopt such an approach at their own institutions.
I would strongly encourage the authors to revisit this work and to conduct a detailed study with the students and staff that were involved in these programmes to assess their feedback and evaluate the impact of the Living Labs. The results of these surveys could then be used to contextualise the impact that these Living Labs are having and would also help to move the findings of the current work from beyond anecdotal evidence to something more formalised. The results from such a survey (or focus group or series of interviews) could also be used to frame the labs and to present a series of recommendations for the development of future activities at both Keele University and beyond.
I hope that these comments are not too disheartening, as it is really interesting to hear about the work that is being done in these Living Labs. With further reflection, evidence, and framing I believe that this work will be of great value to the wider Geoscience Communication community.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-32-RC3 - AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Steven Rogers, 07 Feb 2022
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 842 | 513 | 54 | 1,409 | 32 | 28 |
- HTML: 842
- PDF: 513
- XML: 54
- Total: 1,409
- BibTeX: 32
- EndNote: 28
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
