Irene Visscher-Voerman (Hogeschool Saxion), Klaasjan Visscher (Universiteit Twente (UT))

WP0 comprises general project coordination activities, also alignment with project leaders of the other two themes of ’Significant Questions in Higher Education’ is part this WP’s tasks. The projects are complementary. Whereas Connects focuses on the processes, mechanisms and embedding of educational configurations for transdisciplinary learning, theme 2 addresses the conditions and underlying principles for learning at organizational and network levels, whereas theme 3 focuses on creating evidence-informed innovations through communities focusing on supporting self-regulated learning. The joint project leaders agreed to meet twice-yearly to share intermediate results and incorporate these in the development of our projects.

Nienke Nieveen (WP-leader, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (TUe)), Klaasjan Visscher (UT), Hans Savelberg (Universiteit Maastricht (UM)), Irene Visscher-Voerman (Saxion), Janina den Hertog (Saxion), Éva Kalmár (TU Delft)

WP1 contains activities related to the development of the framework and design principles throughout the project. In this way WP1 is the backbone of the project; it provides input to all other WPs and incorporates their results.

The framework and design principles are developed at four stages:

– At the start of the project, a tentative framework is formulated based on experiences and expertise within the consortium, providing a starting point for the explorative research in WP2.

– Based on the outcomes of WP2, the framework is adapted and design principles are formulated, as input for in-depth cases (WP3) and method development (WP4).

– Based on the first cycle of in-depth cases (WP3), design principles are adapted and substantiated, as input for the second cycle (WP3) and validation cases (WP5).

– Near the end of the project, framework and design principles are finalized based on WP4 and WP5, in close collaboration with WP6 for the outreach.

2A: Antoine vd Beemt (WP-leader, TUe), Klaasjan Visscher (UT), Debbie Gerritsen (Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA)), Hanh Tran (WUR), Diana Dolmans (UM), Feija Schaap (NHL Stenden Hogeschool)

2B: Judith Gulikers (WP-leader, WUR), Karen Fortuin (WUR), Hanh Tran (WUR) Marjolanda Hendriksen (Stenden), Anne Khaled (Hogeschool Arnhem-Nijmegen (HAN)), Irene Visscher-Voerman (Saxion), Éva Kalmár (TU Delft)

In de empirische exploratie zijn elf transdisciplinaire onderwijscasussen van elf verschillende hogeronderwijsinstellingen in Nederland (buiten onze directe CONNECTS-partners) onderzocht via documentanalyse en interviews. De analyse van deze casussen leidde tot de identificatie van drie verschillende typologieën van Transdisciplinary Learning Environments (TLE’s): Consultancy-TLE, Participatory TLE, and Student-led TLE. Deze drie typen hebben verschillende kenmerken wat betreft hoofddoelen, rollen van stakeholders, leerdoelen, activiteiten en de manier waarop de co-creatieprocessen tussen studenten en externe stakeholders worden gestimuleerd en ondersteund. Co-learning lijkt niet overal nagestreefd te worden of wordt niet expliciet benoemd. WP2 voedt de (her)formulering en uitwerking van ontwerpprincipes in WP1, die dienen als input voor WP3 en WP5. Het levert ook de concepten en dimensies voor data-analyse in WP4.

Janina den Hertog (WP-leader, Saxion), Klaasjan Visscher (UT), Irene Wols (UT), Renze Kolster (UT), Cristina Zaga (UT), Tjerk-Jan Schuitema (UvA), Debby Gerritsen (Uva), Sarju Sing (Vrije Universiteit (VU)), Feija Schaap (Stenden), Marjolanda Hendriksen (Stenden), Elise Eshuis (Saxion), Egbert Jan Pasman (Saxion), Fieke Sluijs (UU)

Based on the design principles developed in WP1, in two consecutive cycles teachers and researchers redesign in WP3 transdisciplinary educational configurations. In this process they will consider the specific characteristics and context of the case. Consortium partners serve as case-owners. They actively involve students and stakeholders in the (re)design process. Data are collected regarding the relevance, consistency, practicality, and effectiveness of the interventions and on the design and implementation process, using the instruments developed in WP4. Each of the six in-depth cases provides contextualized answers to the sub-questions of this project. The data-collection is carried out by a researcher in the case organization, in collaboration with a teacher. The within-case analysis is conducted in collaboration with an external researcher (WP4). Students and stakeholders are involved in improving interventions based on the within-case analysis. The case-data also serve as input for the cross-case analysis (WP4).

Marjolein Zweekhorst (WP-leader, VU), Sarju Sing Rai (WP-leader, VU), Klaasjan Visscher (UT), Renze Kolster (UT), Judith Gulikers (WUR), Jeroen Meulebrugge (VU), Feija Schaap (Stenden), Wietske Kuijer (HAN), Anne Khaled (HAN), Irene Visscher-Voerman (Saxion), Éva Kalmár (TU Delft)

In WP4 we will develop instruments for data collection and analysis both for the in-depth and validation cases, and for the within-case and cross-case analysis. The within-case analysis is done jointly with case-owners (WP3). The cross-case analysis uses the dimensions and concepts underlying the framework of design principles, developed in WP2, and the data collected in WP3 and WP5. The cross-case analysis focuses on the three sub-questions of this study, including analyses at micro-level (on enabling and scaffolding co-learning of students, teachers, and stakeholders) and meso-level (on embedding in curricula and organizations sustainably). As the data becomes available at different moments during the project, after the cycles of the in-depth cases and after the validation cases, the cross-case analysis will also take place in cycles. Outcomes of the cross-case analysis serve as input for WP1.

Wietske Kuijer (WP-lead, HAN), Hans Savelberg (UM), Diana Dolmans (UM), Feija Schaap (Stenden), Marjolanda Hendriksen (Stenden), Saskia Wijzen, (HAN), Irene Visscher-Voerman (Saxion), Éva Kalmár

In WP5 we will evaluate the design principles distilled so far on six validation cases. The approach to design, data collection and evaluation in these cases resembles WP3, but there are differences. Only one cycle is carried out and the use of design principles and data collection are more targeted, probably requiring more focused instruments for data collection. Input on the design principles is provided by WP1 based on analyses in WP4. Next to these cases, WP5 contains one or more delphi sessions with (inter)national experts, teachers, and professionals from outside the consortium to further validate the framework and design principles. Results are analysed in WP4.

Hans Savelberg (WP-leader, UM), Klaasjan Visscher (UT), Irene Visscher-Voerman (Saxion), Janina den Hertog (Saxion), Linda de Greef (UvA), Nienke Nieveen (TUe), Marjolanda Hendriksen (Stenden)

The focus of WP6 is twofold: 1) developing a strategy for the communication about the progress of the project to different stakeholders (e.g., through newsletters, conference contributions, opinion pieces), and 2) translating the framework with design principles into products to be utilized by teachers, teacher trainers and other groups of stakeholders. Possible formats include podcasts, teacher handbooks, checklists, serious games, etc. WP6 builds on WP1, but also draws on other WPs.