No abstract

Blended learning can create flexibility for students, more efficiently utilise infrastructure, and can provide high-quality learning at scale. We investigated perceived value and learning gains associated with asynchronous eLearning and synchronous face-to-face (f2f) components of a blended learning experience. We hypothesised that individual student preference for eLearning and f2f learning would be variable, but that participation in f2f classes would enhance student learning. Using a design-based research approach, we have evaluated two iterations of a blended learning experience, combining qualitative survey data and quantitative attendance data and student grades. Students overwhelmingly valued active learning, both within eLearning materials and f2f classes. Final marks positively correlated with the number of f2f classes students attended. Analysis of a subset of intended learning outcomes (ILOs) showed that students who accessed eLearning independently and students who attended f2f classes performed equally-well in ILO-related assessment tasks, however, students were more likely to choose an assessment task directly-related to a class they attended. In addition, completion of required eLearning prior to f2f class attendance significantly enhanced student performance in related assessment tasks. We suggest that f2f attendance as part of blended learning is beneficial, however students can obtain selected ILOs from engaging eLearning materials. Implications for practice or policy: Instructors will gain insight into aspects of blended active learning that students value. We present evidence that supports the benefits to students of completion of pre-eLearning prior to participation in synchronous f2f classes.

Now, more than ever, higher education faces the challenge of educating students to see beyond the limits of their own discipline and to come up with innovative integrated solutions to our contemporary problems. Designing Interdisciplinary Education serves as a foothold for interdisciplinary initiatives in higher education, whether it be programmes, minors, courses or extra-curricular activities. It offers accessible guidance and practical advice for university teachers and curriculum leaders who aim to develop, implement and sustain a successful interdisciplinary approach to their teaching at the classroom, course or programme level. The book’s ‘how to’ approach addresses several important topics such as formulating and assessing interdisciplinary learning outcomes, embedding integration in the programme design, the features of an interdisciplinary teacher, interdisciplinary teaching in practice, and didactic methods that nurture interdisciplinary understanding. This handbook incorporates numerous case studies, key advices, and exercises from a variety of interdisciplinary programmes in diverse countries. The ideas elaborated in this handbook are based on the theories and practices used at the I0nstitute for Interdisciplinary Studies, the University of Amsterdam’s knowledge centre for interdisciplinary learning and teaching.

Various researchers have called for research into positive examples of successful triple helix governed ecosystems. Triple Helix collaborations are seen as the solution to tackle the current ‘wicked problems’ of society. Researchers are encouraged to enhance our understanding of governing inter-organizational collaborations (ecosystems) in the context of university-industry-government (Triple Helix) relations. In this paper we therefore describe a case study of the Brainport Eindhoven ecosystem in the Netherlands which embodies a triple helix organization and how the regional governmental structure (Brainport Foundation and Brainport Development) on the one hand stabilizes at a strategic level and on the other hand gives flexibility at the tactical and operational level. This leads to the transfer of knowledge and to innovation and change within the network. Using mixed methods of 1) analysis of (strategic) documents about the regional governance used and how the Brainport Eindhoven mission evolved through time; 2) semi-structured interviews with current and former Brainport Foundation board members and former Brainport Development managers; and 3) network participant observations; we reveal rich experiences from 25 years of Brainport Eindhoven. This research shows the historical overview of Brainport Eindhoven and how the triple helix parties together managed several  regional or worldwide crises. This togetherness was crucial in the development of a successful regional ecosystem. Our findings illustrate the fragile balance between stability and flexibility within the ecosystem and its governance based on processes of common sensemaking by all stakeholders. Our paper contributes to a better understanding of the development and governance of triple helix entrepreneurial ecosystems. Finally, this paper makes suggestions for future research by discussing the ambition to transform the ecosystem into a Quadruple Helix (adding the ‘community’ as a fourth pillar) organized ecosystem.

Open Innovation collaborations often pit academia against industry. Such inter-organizational collaborations can be troublesome due to different organizational backgrounds. This paper investigates what kind of knowledge a multinational high tech company and a research institute share with each other, how they collaborate to innovate and what role trust plays in this process. Linguistic ethnography is used to analyze the relationship from within, based on the interaction between the parties during project meetings. Tracing the knowledge status of the topics discussed during project meetings and interviews with participants across social time and space, we tease out how (dis)trust develops and shapes the ongoing interaction. Debating which knowledge can be project harvested, reveals an interactional dynamic of distrust. The company tries to control the proceedings of the meeting and expresses distrust in the research institute. Its project management minded approach pushes the institute in a position where the latter has to prove its value. This dynamic is due to the level of operational secrecy, the short time to market, and the exploitative nature of the collaboration. Openness is highly valued by the participants, yet the type of knowledge that is allowed to be harvested as project knowledge determines how open – or closed – the collaboration process is in real time. Finally, flexibility and dedication are found to not necessarily lead to more trust, openness or sharing.