Networked learning to educate future energy transition professionals: results from a case study

ABSTRACT

Society is in strong need to change the way in which energy is produced and consumed. To cope with this complex challenge, integration of knowledge from different disciplines is needed. This paper shows how an interdisciplinary educational approach called networked learning combined with sustainability transition theories can help groups of engineering students to address pressing societal challenges such as the energy transition. A series of 8 workshops was held with an interdisciplinary engineering student team of a University of Technology. Networked learning within the student team showed an ad-hoc character, mainly caused by shifting student constellations during workshops. Workshops focusing on short-term goals resulted in more concrete output. The team showed a high level of equality amongst members and actively reflected on organisational aspects of their learning process. Sustainability transitions concepts and theories that integrate multiple disciplinary perspectives further supported the learning process and helped to guide strategic decision making.

KEYWORDS:

• Sustainability transitions
• networked learning
• higher education
• engineering curriculum
• case study

1. Introduction

Today’s grand socio-technical challenges include health, security, climate change, and pollution (Malmqvist, Rådberg, and Lundqvist 2015). In response, higher engineering education is looking for approaches that learn future engineers to address these challenges. To explore how networked learning as one of these approaches contributes to the education of future engineers, this paper presents a case study conducted at a Dutch University of Technology, focusing on one of the key grand challenges society is facing today, our unsustainable energy production and consumption practices.

To address grand challenges and progress towards sustainability a radical change is needed in the way we satisfy our needs such as for energy or food. This change is known as a ‘transition’ and requires adaptation of both social and technical elements, including governmental regulations, infrastructure, as well as daily routines and practices (Geels 2002; Grin, Rotmans, and Schot 2010; Wieczorek and Berkhout 2009). The energy transition has the potential to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and to stimulate new ways of producing and consuming energy, yet proves difficult to implement (Loorbach and Verbong 2012).

Many argue that the energy transition, being a multi-actor and socio-technical endeavour, calls for a new type of engineers, who are able to effectively work together with engineers from other disciplines on developing technical prototypes, and with non-engineers on making sure that the technical prototypes are meeting the needs of people and help navigate the long-term process of transforming complex and inert systems dominated by powerful incumbents (Barth and Michelsen 2013; Czerniak 2007; Sterrenberg et al. 2010; Van de Kerkhof and Wieczorek 2005).

One of the responses to this call for a new type of engineers is Challenge Based Learning (CBL) (Tassone et al. 2018). CBL is an interdisciplinary experience where learning takes place through identification, analysis, and collaborative design of a sustainable and responsive solution to socio-technical problems, such as the energy transition, of which both the problem and outcomes are open (Kohn Rådberg et al. 2020; Malmqvist, Rådberg, and Lundqvist 2015). One central characteristic of CBL as an educational concept is working in interdisciplinary student-teams (Van den Beemt, MacLeod, and Van der Veen 2020).

This response aligns with an earlier expressed necessity to educate engineering students in interdisciplinary collaboration (Gero 2014; Van den Beemt et al. 2020). Interdisciplinarity in this context refers to attempts to address real-world cases and problems by integrating heterogeneous knowledge bases and knowledge-making practices, whether these are gathered under the institutional cover of a discipline or not (Krohn 2010). In comparison, multidisciplinary interactions are less likely to employ integrative processes, and the individuals involved do not necessarily learn from other disciplinary perspectives (Borrego and Newswander 2010). Transdisciplinarity takes the integrative process a step further by applying knowledge and skills from two or more disciplines to real-world problems or projects in collaboration with stakeholders outside the university (English 2016). Here we focus on interdisciplinarity, aiming to support the ability of students to bring together combinations of theories, concepts and methods from different disciplines in a way that helps them solve grand challenges (Lattuca, Voight, and Fath 2004).

Networked learning is an approach that stimulates interdisciplinary learning in different areas, including engineering education. It encourages students to look for knowledge and expertise outside of their own core group and discipline, and to utilise these new connections as a key resource for problem-solving (cf. Vaessen, Van den Beemt, and De Laat 2014). As such, learning is taking place within a variety of networks, rather than within just one disciplinary group only. Networked learning can be defined as learning that promotes connections among learners, between learners and tutors; between a learning community and its learning resources (Jones 2015). Networked learning motivates participants to describe challenges, aspirations, and learning goals, and to have an outward directed view to make use of expertise in their broader network (Wenger, Trayner, and De Laat 2011). It also supports the development of a shared language among participants (Brown, Collins, and Duguid 1989). As such, a process of co-creation is taking place which can be defined as: ‘the concept of empowering [groups of students] with the skills necessary to innovate and create solutions for themselves’ (Cook and Thomas 2012, 1).

Networked learning also has the ability to create value at individual, group and societal level (Wenger, Trayner, and De Laat 2011). One of the key processes in fostering sustainability transitions like the energy transition is learning (Schot and Geels 2008). However, so far, our understanding of learning processes in sustainability transitions remains limited and empirical evidence is lacking (Van Mierlo and Beers 2020; Van Mierlo et al. 2020; Van Poeck, Östman, and Block 2020; Van Poeck and Östman 2021). We consider networked learning as a promising new learning approach for enabling sustainability transitions. This is confirmed by the networked learning community expressing the need to work on grand challenges and sustainable solutions (Ryberg 2021). Arguably, networked learning, by stimulating interdisciplinary openness and the development of a shared language amongst engineering students has the potential to enable students to support the ongoing energy transition.

To explore networked learning as pedagogical approach in interdisciplinary engineering education, an educational project called ‘Expedition Energy Transition’ was initiated at a University of Technology in the Netherlands. The project included a student team from different engineering disciplines, such as mechanical engineering, industrial design and chemical engineering. The students were on a mission to be the first to show the potential of formic acid as a sustainable energy carrier for future transportation, and as such addressed an open-ended ill-defined societal problem (Kohn Rådberg et al. 2020; Malmqvist, Rådberg, and Lundqvist 2015). The involved teachers previously taught workshops for practitioners in the field of sustainable energy, building on insights from transition studies. Although networked learning as an educational approach was new to the participating teachers, they applied their experience on networked learning gained from earlier workshops for practitioners. As such, both the students and the teachers were on a professional learning experience together. This common journey had multiple aims. First, we aimed to bring networked learning in the context of engineering education, and in current developments such as CBL. The second aim was to get a better understanding of the role of networked learning in preparing (future) engineers to address pressing societal challenges such as the energy transition, by integrating theories and concepts from the sustainability transitions field in existing networked learning approaches. Finally, we aim to make a practical contribution by supporting the student team in its mission and learn about how to integrate networked learning in engineering university education and for the professional development of university teachers. Our main research question, therefore, is:

How can networked learning be combined with sustainability transitions theory and concepts to support engineering students in addressing pressing societal challenges through transformative change?

We aim to address this question with a qualitative case study approach and by building on multiple sources of evidence including reflective notes, teacher notes, and a focus group interview with students. Following this introduction, in Section 2, we discuss theoretical approaches in the field of interdisciplinary engineering education and networked learning, as well as how the concepts were operationalised. In Section 3, we elaborate on the case characteristics and educational context as well as the design of the case study, including the use of sustainability transition studies concepts. In Section 4, we explain the methods used for data collection and the chosen analysis strategies. In Section 5, we present the main results, with special attention to how networked learning was interwoven in the program. Additionally, in Section 6 we discuss the main results, as well as limitations and generalisability of the research approach and directions for future research. Section 7 provides the main conclusions of our research.

2. Theoretical framework

Networked learning can be a useful approach for supporting interdisciplinarity in engineering education. In particular, it has the potential to educate engineers how to act as change agents in broad transformative processes such as the energy transition. Below, we discuss interdisciplinary engineering education and networked learning, their challenges, and the way these concepts were operationalised in this study. Given the focus on interdisciplinary engineering education for the energy transition, we frame this discussion using concepts and theories from the field of transition studies. The transition studies’ framing was used to help structure the strategic decision-making by the learning network (i.e. the student team), which we discuss in Section 3.2.

2.1. Interdisciplinary engineering education and networked learning

Individuals in interdisciplinary teams learn from other disciplinary perspectives and produce work in an integrative process that would not have been possible in a single disciplinary setting (McNair et al. 2011). This implies that multiple disciplines are needed for the construction of knowledge, and thus for interdisciplinarity (Lattuca, Knight, and Bergom 2013). Interdisciplinarity looks for a common methodological approach and theoretical fundament as a synthesis of the participating disciplines. The result is an effort by participants to speak ‘one shared language’ (Borrego and Newswander 2010).

The requirements and focus points of interdisciplinary engineering education result in an approach in which students work together in learning networks. Learning networks are perceived as spaces in which students connect ideas, share problems and insights in a constructive way, and connect with familiar concepts, using new knowledge that is collaboratively constructed through dialogue and social interactions (Wenger, Trayner, and De Laat 2011). Because of technological and societal developments, networks become flexible, borderless, and innovative. Although the richest examples of networked learning involve interaction with online materials and with other people, the use of online materials is not a sufficient characteristic to define networked learning (Carvalho and Goodyear 2014).

Networked learning can give students the opportunity to develop themselves in a flexible way together with colleagues, by focusing on (shared) learning needs while at the same time staying close to their own domain of expertise (Vrieling, Van den Beemt, and De Laat 2016). As such, networked learning results in value creation at the level of the individual, the group and eventually also for society at large (Wenger, Trayner, and De Laat 2011).

Despite a growing body of literature on learning in networks (Hodgson and McConnell 2020), this phenomenon appears to be rather unknown and weakly conceptualised in the context of interdisciplinary engineering education. For example, little is known about how students look at networks, and how they perceive benefits or disadvantages of learning in networks. Nguyen (2017) forms an exception by studying perceived experiences of networked learning in a developing country context. Students were found to perceive networked learning as a transfer of knowledge of teachers to students and as a form of collective sense making; the latter is very much in line with Western notions of networked learning (Nguyen 2017). Students learn professional skills, such as presenting and project management, within their educational programs. However, these skills appear more inward oriented compared to skills that focus on connecting to the outer world and on co-creating new knowledge that is critical to solving current societal challenges and to advancing the energy transition in particular.

The Dutch context of our case study offers distinctive approaches to networked learning, often positioned in educational settings. These approaches include a focus on quantitative methods and theory development (e.g. Vriens and Corten 2018; Molenaar 2012), vocational and workplace learning (e.g. Schreurs et al. 2019; Prenger, Poortman, and Handelzalts 2021), online and open learning environments (e.g. Spoelstra, Van Rosmalen, and Sloep 2014), and social learning starting from learning processes and value creation (e.g. De Laat 2012; Vrieling-Teunter et al. 2019). In our case study, we follow this last approach focusing on learning processes and value creation. We perceive learning networks as entities that enable students to create collaborative environments, focus their efforts, and develop learning agendas that grow and change with their participants (Liebermann 2000). We suggest that the Dimensions of Social Learning framework (DSL) is helpful to describe participants’ experiences of the processes in a learning network (Vrieling, Van den Beemt, and De Laat 2016).

The DSL framework consists of four dimensions (see Table 1): (i) practice; (ii) domain and value creation; (iii) collective identity, and (iv) organisation. Each of the four dimensions encompass several indicators that represent the extent to which the members of the network show specific attitudes and behaviour. Practice refers to the extent to which the members of a network exhibit social activities and the extent to which their knowledge is integrated in day-to-day activities. Domain and value creation refer to the subject or field that inspires members to share, broaden or deepen their knowledge and skills within the network, including the value this creates for the participants’ practice. Collective identity is about the mutual engagement that binds the participants together in a social entity, shown, for instance, by a shared identity, strong connections, and the perception of members as knowledge creators rather than task executers. Organisation, finally, refers to the extent to which the members share social norms, the extent to which they are self-organised based on hierarchical or equal relationships and the extent to which they have a focus on local or global activities. Research shows a positive impact of the indicators of these four dimensions and the perceived sense of community and learning (Schreurs et al. 2014; Van den Beemt et al. 2018). For example, networks whose participants perceive the network as a team and show attention to each other both professionally and informally, who have an open attitude towards their work and development, and a supportive attitude toward non-participants are represented in the DSL-framework with high scores on indicators such as social activities, broadening and deepening knowledge, mutual engagement and a shared interactional repertoire (see also Raes et al. 2017).

Table 1. Dimensions of social learning framework (after Vrieling, Van den Beemt, and De Laat 2016).

Dimension	Indicator	To what extent does the group …
Practice	Integrated or non-integrated activities	show agreements about coherence in things made by the group? (i.e. are group products very much related to each other?)
		discuss group products during group meetings?
	Temporarily or permanent activities	formulate short-term (learning) goals? formulate long-term (learning) goals? discuss (learning) goals? show a relation between the goals of the group and its’ activities?
Domain and value creation	Sharing or broadening/deepening knowledge and skills	allow giving feedback on others’ work? change/amend group products after feedback? show an equal time investment among group members? show a time investment outside group meetings?
	Individual or collective value creation	make an agenda before group meetings? have a shared planning of learning goals?
Collective identity	Shared or unshared identity	show an informal way of working that supports connectedness? make you feel part of it? have contacts between group members outside group meetings?
	Weak or strong ties	show interaction between group members during meetings? show proximal relationships between group members? (i.e. do group members feel closely related?) show reciprocal relationships between group members? have contacts between group members and experts?
	Task executors or knowledge workers	show long term learning attitude in relation to (learning) goals? consist of voluntary participants?
Organisation	Directed or self-organised activities	show reflective quality? (i.e. to what extent does the group ask itself what went well, and why? What can be improved?) show interest in other group members’ ideas and experience based on the group’s (learning) goals? divide roles based on expertise?
	Local or global activities	focus on activities relevant only for the group? focus on activities relevant for the wider community? focus on sharing knowledge with others (outside the group)?
	Hierarchic or equal relationships	show equal relationships within the group? show an atmosphere that enhances equality?
	Shared or non-shared interactional norms	communicate about the procedures and steps to achieve shared (learning) goals? show a feeling of safety to say and do as members wish within the group? show openness for opinions of others?

The combination of interdisciplinary learning and networked learning is a very promising approach especially for educating change agents in energy transitions. With a focus on real-life, open-ended problems as an anchor for projects, CBL appears a useful context to offer authentic and pedagogically sound experiences to groups of students from different disciplines (Kohn Rådberg et al. 2020; Malmqvist, Rådberg, and Lundqvist 2015). Students thus learn to understand decision-making processes in the context of ambiguity and lack of information that often exist in such practical projects (Do 2013). However, strategies are needed for teachers to act as effective interdisciplinary coaches, who can guide students in their quest for information, knowledge and interdisciplinary collaboration. For example, to avoid micromanagement, courses and projects should offer overarching structures that scaffold students toward success (Borrego et al. 2013; Van den Beemt et al. 2020). Complementing assignments with ‘scaffolding structures’ would imply inclusion of, for example, small goals, attainable in one term, and tasks defined in levels of difficulty, with learning goals related to those levels (Do 2013).

3. Context and design characteristics of the case study

Below we elaborate on the educational context of our case study, including the university setting, student team characteristics, and funding. We discuss the basic theories and concepts of sustainability transition studies, which formed a special context to the case study and which helped to structure ongoing strategic discussions in the student team.

3.1. Educational context of the case study

To explore how networked learning contributes to the interdisciplinary education of future engineers, a rich case study of an explorative and qualitative nature was conducted in a Dutch University of Technology (Creswell 2007; Yin 2003). At this University of Technology, student teams from various disciplinary backgrounds, work on the development and societal implementation of new sustainable technologies. Participation in these teams was voluntary and extracurricular. The involved student team focused on the development of a prototype of a bus that runs on formic acid. The aim was to show the potential of formic acid as a sustainable energy carrier for transportation purposes. Before joining, the students mainly focused on the development of the technology, rather than on considering its adoption and use by society, which is needed for a larger scale, systemic change. Building on insights from transition studies (described in Section 3.2 below) and following a networked learning approach enabled the students to broaden their view and perspectives beyond the technological and engineering focus and provided the key added value for the team.

The team consisted of around 20 bachelors’ and masters’ students from various engineering disciplines including mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, chemical engineering, industrial design, sustainable innovation, applied physics and industrial engineering. As students participated voluntarily in these teams the number of students varies over time. Five different sub-groups were present within the team including management, marketing, technology, finance, and future adoption. The management sub-group included the team founder and the leaders of different sub-groups. This sub-group was responsible for setting and reaching targets. While the marketing sub-group managed public and external relations, the technology sub-group included the electrical-, mechanical-, and chemical engineering of the prototype. Finance was responsible for attracting funds and allocating money to the different sub-groups, while future adoption was integrated throughout the other sub-groups and looked for potential future applications of the technology. Several students were involved in multiple sub-groups of the team. Students participated voluntarily in the program, which resulted in 14 students joining different workshops in different subsets (see Section 3.4 below for an overview of the workshops). Below, we further explain transition studies concepts and theories used.

3.2. Key insights from transition studies

Sustainability transitions studies is a new and growing field of research (Markard, Raven, and Truffer 2012; Chappin and Ligtvoet 2014; Wieczorek 2018). Its development has been motivated by the observation that society is facing many complex challenges such as climate change or social inequalities that prove too difficult to solve using technological innovation and based on sole engineering knowledge. They require an interdisciplinary collaboration and co-creative learning processes among engineers and non-engineers. This is because a sustainability transition is not only about changing the way we produce goods, but also about how societies significantly alter their consumeristic behaviour (Grin, Rotmans, and Schot 2010). Transition studies argue for both radical technological change and equally profound social change in daily practices, organisation of markets, and functioning of regulations and policies (Geels 2002). By building on several disciplines, sustainability transition studies are inherently going beyond the disciplinary divide and supply a useful common language that can facilitate networked learning. Below we summarise the key elements of this language that have been used.

Sustainability transitions depart from the recognition that radically different, more sustainable ‘ways of doing things’ and greener technologies such as wind energy or car-sharing systems often cannot compete in the mainstream market with existing, stable and well-organised configurations. To develop and gain critical mass, they need to be protected from that environment. These protected spaces are called niches (Geels 2002; Schot and Geels 2008). Analysis of historical cases demonstrated that in specific circumstances niches may grow and come to influence the existing systems, eventually leading to its replacement (Geels 2002).

Niches develop when niche actors strategically manage network formation around the novelty, when they learn from its application in society, and when they align their expectations with regards to the functionality of that innovation (Geels 2002; Schot and Geels 2008). Exogenous developments of both long-term (e.g. urbanisation processes, demographic change) or of a sudden nature (e.g. the nuclear disaster in Fukushima or financial crisis) can put pressure on the mainstream system (Geels 2002; Grin, Rotmans, and Schot 2010) and create windows of opportunities for niches to scale up. The niche can either align (fit) with the mainstream system, for example, when it offers a solution to a problem that the incumbent actors face or challenge (stretch) it and press for institutional change, when offering a service or technology of an alternative character (Smith and Raven 2012).

Within niches new business models are developed that challenge the status quo (Bidmon and Knab 2018; Sarasini and Linder 2018). Business models describe how organisations and their focal partners create and capture value and are a means to bring new, more sustainable technology to the market (Boons and Lüdeke-Freund 2013; Chesbrough and Rosenbloom 2002; Foss and Saebi 2016; Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010; Petzer, Wieczorek, and Verbong 2020; Zott, Amit, and Massa 2011). Different firms (and their partners) may also collectively create one overall value proposition for their customers thereby forming an ecosystem (Adner 2017; Walrave et al. 2017). For example, for electrical cars, end users need both an electric car and a working charging infrastructure to drive. Niche actors actively devise strategies to deal with the barriers and opportunities originating from the mainstream system by smart design of business models for their niche innovations (Huijben, Podoynitsyna, and Verbong 2016). For example, smart design of a business model may help to overcome the risk perception of end users investing in sustainable technologies or attract people with different investment motivations into one common project, thereby supporting the further growth and development of the niche (Huijben and Verbong 2013; Vasileiadou, Huijben, and Raven 2016). Below a summary of key concepts used is provided (Table 2).

Table 2. Overview of key concepts used (Chesbrough and Rosenbloom 2002; Foss and Saebi 2016; Geels 2002; Schot and Geels 2008; Smith and Raven 2012; Walrave et al. 2017; Zott, Amit, and Massa 2011).

Key concept	Explanation
Niche	Protected space for the development of radically different, sustainable technologies and practices.
Mainstream socio-technical system	Dominating, (often unsustainable) socio-technical configuration providing a specific societal function like energy, food or mobility composed of: technology, cultural norms, industry structures, infrastructures and regulations and policies.
Exogenous environment	Factors out of immediate reach of niche actors such as broad developments like urbanisation or sudden changes like nuclear disasters that put pressure on the mainstream system and create windows of opportunity for niches to further develop and scale-up.
Strategic Niche Management (SNM)	Strategic managing of niche development by facilitation of network formation, learning processes and shaping expectations about the niche technology or practice.
Niche empowerment	The strategy of either aligning (fit) to or challenging (stretch) the existing mainstream system by the niche actors.
Business model	Means to create and capture value from the niche technology or a service and to overcome barriers from the mainstream system.
Ecosystem	Set of actors that do not necessarily directly interact as they are part of different value chains, but that share a common goal (e.g. electric driving) and together create one overall ecosystem value proposition for the end user.

3.3. Design of the case study

The program was created in continuous interaction with the student team to adapt to their changing needs. Involved experienced teachers with a background in sustainability transitions could translate these needs into specific assignments to be carried out in different workshops based on various key concepts from transition studies (Table 3). The program was thus co-created at two levels. First, at the level of curriculum development, the program was co-created with the students giving them a sense of ownership and responsibility for the educational trajectory. Second, networked learning was applied as an educational approach with the aim to stimulate co-creation among participants.

Table 3. Overview of the different workshops of the case study.

Workshop	Topic	Tools used for the support of networked learning^a	Staff involved
1	Open Space Studio: Vision Building, Agenda Setting	Rain of compliments^b, check-in, idea wall, walking lunch brainstorm.	Two external teachers, project managers^c
2	Marketing	None, traditional lectures in existing course at the university.	University teacher^d
3	Finance	None, traditional lectures in existing course at the university.	University teacher^d
4	Crowdfunding: preparation session	Crowdfunding Canvas and Plan de Campagne tools^e, idea wall.	Project managers
5	Crowdfunding: validation of previous workshop with crowdfunding expert from crowdfunding consultancy.	Crowdfunding Canvas and Plan de Campagne tools^e, road to the future (‘toekomstweg’)	Project managers, external crowdfunding expert
6	Dealing with system barriers	(General) brainstorm, idea wall, fishbone diagram, ABC brainstorm, road to the future (‘toekomstweg’).	Project managers, practical expert from the university
7	Building your niche: Strategic Niche Management and Niche Empowerment^c.	Brainstorm, idea wall, road to the future (‘toekomstweg’).	Project managers, university teacher
8	Development and analysis of possible ecosystem business models.	Lego Serious Play, world café.	Project managers, two university teachers^d

^a Note that the networked learning steps as described in Section 2.3 were used as a basic structure for workshop 4–7.

^b These tools are useful for group building and creating an equal atmosphere in which participants feel safe to contribute to the discussion (Wenger, Trayner, and De Laat 2011).

^c Two of the involved researchers performed project management tasks. One of them also was involved in teaching the workshops as she has a background in sustainability transitions research. The involved teachers were supported by a researcher in the field of networked learning to support the implementation of networked learning in the workshops.

^d The involved university teacher is not part of the researcher team.

^e The Plan de Campagne and Crowdfunding Canvas are planning tools developed by the Dutch crowdfunding consultancy firm (Douw&Koren 2021a, 2021b). The Crowdfunding canvas is inspired by the business model canvas developed by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010).

We adopted the approach developed by Wenger, Trayner, and De Laat (2011) as a basic structure for the design of the workshops. The approach consists of activities that guide the learning network in achieving their learning goals. First, members of the learning network define their topic and learning goals. The network members then develop a shared learning agenda including activities to reach the selected goals, as well as deadlines for reaching them. Along the way, the network needs to form a sense of collective identity and a feeling of belongingness for its members to function as a team (see also Schreurs et al. 2014). As a next step, the network draws up an inventory of the type of knowledge and expertise needed, as well as the types of organisations and people required. They then consider their own wider networks for experts that can support their learning process. Together with these experts, the network members create new knowledge, which is then shared within and outside the learning network. The result is knowledge that can be applied, for instance to solve a problem, or design a product.

One of the researchers with a background in transition studies and sustainable business models acted as project manager and developed the overall program in cooperation with two members of the student team. One of the other researchers supported the project by managing operational aspects. For the first workshop, two external teachers were hired from an organisation specialised in education for the support of the energy transition. One of them developed ‘Open Space Studio’, a three-day workshop focusing on creating a shared vision for the team and agenda setting by making use of a set of co-creation principles and methodologies (InnoEnergy 2018). The Open Space Studio consisted of a one-day preparation session in which the core objective of the team was decided. This was followed by a two-day workshop in which group objectives were further elaborated upon and a corresponding roadmap was built. Additionally, the existing student team setup was reflected upon, and new organisational structures were set.

Building on the outcomes of this workshop a series of seven workshops was planned based on the team’s needs. Students could attend both traditional lectures and workshops with a networked learning educational approach. For example, students were subscribed to two lectures which were part of ongoing courses in the field of finance and marketing at the university, since these were indicated as key areas for development by the team in the initial Open Space Studio workshop. The other five workshops were developed by teachers in the field of sustainability transitions, business models and ecosystems. These teachers were supported by an educational researcher in the field of networked learning that helped them to apply the networked learning methodology explained in Section 2.1.

For two of the workshops, external experts were involved to help students with applying theory to their case and validating workshop results, by providing a more practice-oriented perspective. For the last workshop, we used Lego Serious Play as a tool for stimulating co-creation and equal participation among participants (Lego Serious Play 2021). An overview of the different workshops including transition studies concepts implemented, networked learning pedagogical methods used, as well as involved internal and external staff is given below in Table 3. The involved researchers performed different tasks including project management, developing and teaching the workshops and supporting the setup of networked learning in the workshops. Because students participated voluntarily, different sub-groups of students were present during the workshops.

4. Methods

4.1. Data collection

The case study developed is a rich and explorative qualitative case study that builds on multiple sources of evidence (Yin 2003; Stake 2005). For triangulation purposes, reflective notes were gathered after 5 out of 8 workshops (Crowdfunding workshops, SNM, Barriers and Marketing). Reflective notes are written accounts of personal reflections following a predetermined activity in the respondent's practice (Vrieling, Van den Beemt, and de Laat 2019; Honold 2006). Because reflective notes are collected immediately after an activity, they serve as a tool for monitoring individual developments in skills, knowledge and attitude (Honold 2006). The reflective notes consisted of basic information of the student such as name, study and their role in the team as well as questions on expectations before the workshop, how they experienced the workshop and the most important outputs they obtained from the workshop. These questions were meant to probe for networked learning in the student team.

Since the initial reflective note questions did not provoke a deeper level of reflection from the workshops, they were slightly adapted after the second crowdfunding workshop. This was done by asking students for concrete examples to explain their experiences. Additionally, notes were made by the project manager during the workshops, and pictures were taken of outcomes of the workshop like posters and post-it idea walls. For the crowdfunding workshop, the student responsible for the implementation of the developed action plan was asked to document the steps taken after the workshop. Additionally, during the Lego workshop video recordings were made of the different ecosystems developed by different sub-teams in the classroom. Furthermore, involved teachers and experts provided a written short evaluation after workshops.

Finally, a focus group interview with five students from the team was held right after the final workshop. Focus groups are especially suitable for the evaluation of education and can validate and complement other forms of inquiry (Williams and Katz 2001). Students were asked to reflect on networked learning processes, content-related lessons learned, possible output formats, and organisation of the workshops. At the end of the focus group each of the students was asked for one aspect to keep, and one to remove from future editions. The focus group was audio taped and summarised by the project managers and one of the other researchers.

4.2. Data analysis

The collected empirical data from the observations, interviews, focus group, teacher feedback and reflective notes, were analysed and triangulated to enhance the internal validity of the results (Miles and Huberman 1994). The reflective notes, consisting of 164 individual sentences written by the respondents, were coded following a provisional coding procedure. For this procedure, a set of theoretical constructs, which could be extended during the analysis was used (Miles and Huberman 1994; Saldaña 2009). The codes were derived from the DSL framework for networked learning (see Table 1) (Vrieling, Van den Beemt, and De Laat 2016). The involved project manager and educational researcher together defined a preliminary set of codes based on the networked learning dimensions described in Table 1, which were tested collectively on a subsample of the reflective notes. Subsequently, the codes were iteratively refined. Table 4 provides an overview of the codes that were added during the coding procedure. The researchers coded the reflective notes individually, after which a discussion was held to reach consensus on the findings (Saldaña 2009). Empirical materials from the other data sources were used to further verify and extend the findings.

Table 4. Overview of codes that were added during the coding procedure (Miles and Huberman 1994; Saldaña 2009).

Code	Meaning
AP-POS AP-NEG	Activity Perception Looking back at the workshop, how did students perceive activities (positive, negative)?
VAL-POS VAL-NEG	Value of Future Activities Looking at the future, how do students perceive anticipated events (positive, negative)?

5. Results

Below we discuss the main results of our case study, with a focus on how networked learning supported engineering students in addressing pressing societal issues. To do so, we describe and interpret student reflections on networked learning building on the four dimensions of the DSL framework (see Table 1) (Vrieling, Van den Beemt, and De Laat 2016). Furthermore, we describe how students experienced the series of workshops, and how these workshops affected their attitude toward the future of the student team as well as how students evaluated their role in the design of the case study workshops. Finally, we present the experiences of involved teachers and experts.

5.1. Dimensions of networked learning

5.1.1. Practice

Learning goals defined by the learning network’s members guide networked learning practice. Short-term learning goals represent a focus of the network on temporarily activities. Formulation and discussion of long-term goals reflect permanent learning activities. By asking ‘what question did you bring to the workshop?’ we triggered reflection on the goals among our respondents.

Respondents for instance phrased short-term goals related to clients for their formic acid solution:

How to find clients? What do these clients want? (R2, OL, WS2-Mark)

This evolved along the way into long term focused questions such as

How to set up a crowdfunding plan fitting our purpose? (R28, SB, WS4-Crowd)

Analyzing additional aspects. (R52, MA, WS4-Crowd)

The development into long-term goals shows a shifting focus toward permanent learning activities supporting value creation on the network and community level, rather than on the individual level. This development also reflects a shift from non-integrated activities, such as solving immediate problems, towards integrated activities that serve the main purpose of the network. Integrated activities are reflected in an increased communication and discussion of experiences within the learning network. This communication started off, for instance with:

Good start for our project plan. (R41, JJ, WS4-Crowd)

How will we make this concrete? (R51, MA, WS4-Crowd)

Eventually, some students tried to piece together the activities into an integrated whole:

Good brainstorm session … more questions than answers though. (R29, SB, WS4-Crowd)

One step back: what was our goal again? (R30, SB, WS4-Crowd)

Furthermore, over time, the results of earlier sessions lead to adjustment and refinement of learning goals and agenda:

Research into actors (R122, SB, WS6-Barriers), legislation. (R123, SB, WS6-Barriers)

How to connect marketing plan to public perception. (R121, SB, WS6-Barriers)

5.1.2. Domain and value creation

Domain and value creation of a learning network are defined by how the learning goals and subsequent activities lead to the development of knowledge and perceived value. For instance, sharing knowledge inside and outside the learning network, needs a perception of what the network’s concerns and topics are. This was triggered by asking ‘what happened during the meeting?’

We made a plan, tasks are clear. (R71, TW, WS5-Crowd)

Good knowledge about difficulties of bringing technology to market was shared. (R8, TL, WS2-Mark)

It made me looking forward to more of these useful workshops. (R14, TL, WS2-Mark)

By translating the learning goals into activities, the learning network creates a learning agenda, including ways to reach the set goals, as well as setting deadlines for reaching them. The ways in which the learning agenda is discussed during meetings reflects the level of value creation, on the individual, network, and community (university) level. This was triggered by the question ‘how was the meeting valuable?’

I learned that we should focus more on the client. (R5, OL, WS2-Mark)

I learned that we need to ask future clients what they want. (R19, SB, WS2-Mark)

Inspiration. (R11, TL, WS1-mark), Heard inspiring ideas. (R73, TW, WS5-Crowd)

A wake-up call that theoretical knowledge can be applied to solve real problems. (R13, TL, WS2-Mark)

Ways to solve problems. (R27, TW, WS4-Crowd)

Realised that crowdfunding costs reasonable amounts of time, effort, and it is complex. (R66, TL, WS5-Crowd)

The above statements reflect learning outcomes that were still rather abstract. However, after the crowdfunding workshops a concrete action plan was made by one of the team members which was subsequently implemented on an online crowdfunding platform (Oneplanetcrowd 2021). The crowdfunding workshops helped the students to realise that they could make use of their network in more ways than just for obtaining knowledge.

5.1.3. Collective identity

Collective identity reflects the ways in which network members work together in obtaining their learning goals. This identity is the result of efforts to make each other feel part of a larger whole, for instance by informal ways of working supporting connectedness.

Equal interactions, many possibilities to contribute. (R138, LC, WS7-SNM)

It was good to be sparring again with team members. (R83, MW, WS5-Crowd)

Collective identity is also formed by feelings of making progress together, of experiencing the power of proximal and reciprocal relations.

Team members came up with new insights. (R26, TW, WS4-Crowd)

Next, the network draws up an inventory of the type of knowledge and expertise needed, as well as the types of organisations and people required.

Discussing our questions with an expert. (R70, TW, WS5-Crowd)

Contacting organisations that will be of use later in the process. (R95, MV, WS6-Barriers)

During the focus group students reflected on the degree to which they made new contacts after the workshops. While they recognised the importance of the different stakeholders that were identified during the different workshops, the longer-term strategic focus in a number of the workshops showed a mismatch with the short team objectives of the team.

5.1.4. Organisation

Organisation of the learning network becomes visible in the reflective quality of the network members, their mutual interest in ideas and experience, for instance by an ongoing reflection on the effectiveness of processes.

Brainstorms need to be captured along the way. (R54, MA, WS4-Crowd)

This reflection usually brings up larger reflective questions regarding the learning goals and learning agenda of the network.

Is this feasible? How will we organize this? What about our wider network? (R42, MT, WS4-Crowd)

A different view given by people outside my core-network. (R128, MT, WS6-Barriers)

This can be solved by an open communication about procedures and steps to achieve goals, feelings of safety and openness to express opinions.

We need less starting from assumptions, but need to talk to the client. (R6, OL, WS2-Mark)

Additionally, during the Open Space Studio workshop students extensively reflected on the current organisational setup of their team and designed a new one consisting of five main pillars: vision and strategy, technology, marketing and public relations, finance and future adoption. For each of these sub-groups different end goals were set and related milestones defined. The workshop was considered highly valuable by the team members who indicated that the division of tasks and roles was very important and that after the workshop the team worked more efficient.

Moreover, it is important that all team members have the possibility to contribute to ongoing discussions during the workshops.

A lot of interactions, equal opportunities to contribute. (R138, LvC, WS7-SNM)

This high level of equality amongst team members was further confirmed during the focus group.

During the last workshop Lego was used as a supporting tool to support the process of idea creation by the different team members. It stimulated team members to build instead of thinking too much in advance about possible restrictions. The setup of the exercises allowed for equal input of all team members. Moreover, especially the more technical oriented team members got more easily engaged in the process of strategic design. The workshop resulted in new ideas for the team, like the possibility of applying the technology on luxurious yachts. As such, Lego can be considered as an enabler of networked learning by the student team.

5.2. Students perceived experiences and attitude toward the future

In general, students were positive about the different workshops that they joined. They appreciated the fact that topics were discussed in a structured way and liked the ideas that were developed during the different workshops.

Better structure of the problem and solution. (R49, TC, WS4-Crowd)

Nice ideas. (R37, TvL, WS4-Crowd)

Students also showed motivation and a positive attitude towards future workshops and activities by the team.

Looking forward to more useful workshops. (R14, TvL, WS2-Mark)

Trust in the campaign. (R72, TW, WS5-Crowd)

On the other hand, students also shared critical remarks on the setup of the different workshops.

While for some the timespan for different activities was perceived as positive or even a bit too fast, others would have like a bit more speed in the different activities or less replication of information from earlier workshops.

A lot of chaos and only a few breaks. (R59, SB, WS5-Crowd)

We could have got to the point faster. (R92, MV, WS6-Barriers)

We started with rather a lot of repetition; that was a bit tiring. (R167, SB, WS7-SNM)

This was also caused by the fact that participation to the workshops was voluntary resulting in different sub-sets of students during different workshops. Additionally, students had very different backgrounds. While some of them were already familiar with the transition studies field of study, others were educated in the natural sciences and needed more time to get introduced to the different concepts. Students did recognise this and also considered the different backgrounds of these students as an important resource for the generation of new ideas. The relatively fast speed of the exercises in the Lego workshop was considered as very constructive for idea generation and suggested for the other workshops as well.

During the focus group, students suggested to have homework exercises to prepare for the different workshops to reach a deeper level of learning during the workshops. Students also indicated that they missed the overview of the workshop series and the connection between the different workshops. This was mainly because only two members of the team were in direct contact with the project manager to design the different workshops and the fact that different sub-sets of students visited different workshops. Also, they would have liked to have more time to create an action plan from the workshops and a better format to document the lessons learned. The workshops with the most concrete output (Open Space Studio and the Crowdfunding workshops) were therefore also indicated as the most useful ones since they had very concrete output. The finance and marketing workshops on the other hand were considered as less useful since these were not directly tailored towards the needs of the student team and showed a lot of overlap with the study programs of the students that visited these sessions. On the other hand, students indicated that it was useful to refresh their knowledge.

Refreshing the different market dimensions. (R12, TvL, WS2-Mark)

Students also indicated that bundling of the different workshops to have time in between for implementation, reflection and adaptation of their plan would be very useful. This could also help in making a better connection between the different workshops. Finally, while students appreciated the practical input from experts from the field, they believe they should be present from the start of the workshop to make sure that they are aligned with the team’s learning process.

5.3. Teacher and expert perspective

For workshops 4, 5, 6, and 7 (Table 3) a networked learning approach as described in Section 2.3 was applied. While the teachers did have experience with co-creation techniques like brainstorming, the networked learning sequence was new to them. Involved teachers were supported by an expert in the field of networked learning in the preparation of these workshops. The teachers experienced a shift from a focus on information sending to coaching and structuring the discussion amongst the students which required a different set of teaching skills. Rather than providing the students with information the aim was to guide students in their search for knowledge, either within or outside the core team. Available theories and concepts from the sustainability transition studies helped in structuring this process and in guiding students toward strategic planning of subsequent steps to take. In line with the students, the teachers recognised the need for more time at the end of workshops to record the lessons learned as well as to make a concrete plan of action. A stable student population during the different workshops would be of further help in structuring the learning process of the team.

During the workshops two experts were involved, one in the field of crowdfunding and one in the field of mobility. The crowdfunding expert indicated that the students were very well prepared and professional. This shows that the preparing workshop had been a useful exercise for the students. The mobility expert that was present during the barrier workshop stated that the setup of the workshop really helped students to understand their position in the changing mobility system which includes different stakeholders and interests. Also, it supports strategic decision-making capabilities by having students reflecting on which elements of the current system they can build on or should avoid.

6. Discussion

The main goal of our research was to examine the extent to which networked learning can be applied in an engineering education setting where students in interdisciplinary teams work together on pressing societal challenges. We aimed to contribute to existing theory on networked learning and its potential for engineering education and the support of sustainability transitions. Our objective was also to assess the practical application in the engineering curriculum of the university and to support the involved student team in their mission. We applied networked learning by following the steps of Wenger, Trayner, and De Laat (2011) and used the DSL framework of Vrieling, Van den Beemt, and De Laat (2016) to evaluate its impacts. In this process, we used theories and concepts and the language from sustainability transition studies. Below we first reflect on the way networked learning was applied in an engineering education setting and its effects. After that, we focus on the role of sustainability transitions studies theories and concepts in the networked learning process.

6.1. Networked learning in an engineering education setting

Building on the four dimensions of the DSL framework (practice, domain and value creation, collective identity and organisation) we could analyse the process of networked learning. We observed that students mostly show non-integrated and ad-hoc activities. This is understandable because they were forced in a series of workshops following specific themes not already familiar to them. Additionally, participation was voluntary resulting in different sub-sets of students for the different workshops. The voluntary character of the workshops is beneficial for networked learning as it stimulates intrinsic motivation for learning (Vrieling, Van den Beemt, and De Laat 2019). However, it also made it difficult for students to have a complete overview and to see the connection between the different workshops. This could be solved in the future by embedding the program in the curriculum of the different study programs of the involved students. Additionally, building on the first Open Space workshop a number of workshops were defined by the project manager in consultation with only two students from the team. This means that the agenda-setting process of the overall workshop themes was not executed by the team as a whole. Future editions should therefore include a shared goal setting for workshops by the student team to stimulate integrated learning (Vrieling, Van den Beemt, and De Laat 2016). Workshops thus had predefined topics and this also influenced how students enter a workshop and what they define as learning goals in their reflective notes.

Value was created on the individual, team and societal level (Wenger, Trayner, and De Laat 2011). At individual level, the students mostly showed a positive attitude towards the lessons learned during the workshops as well as a positive attitude towards future activities. We thereby contribute to recent debates about student perceptions of networked learning (Nguyen 2017). However, several lessons learned remained rather abstract and were not put into action afterwards. The Open Space Studio and crowdfunding workshops were positive exceptions and did result in more specific output for the team. This can be explained by the shorter term and more specific learning goals that were set for these workshops, as well as more time spend on making a detailed action plan, either at the end of the workshop or afterwards.

Additionally, we only probed for outcomes directly related to the workshops. The reflective notes focused on how students experienced the workshops and the action points they took from it. We did not evaluate if and how action points were implemented and how they affected the networked learning dimensions over time. We, therefore, suggest to follow the student team before and after the workshops in future editions by using the DSL framework by Vrieling, Van den Beemt, and De Laat (2016). Thus, we can learn more about how the educational workshop trajectory and the ongoing student team activities influence each other. Moreover, due to the different student constellations over time we could not monitor the development of individual students. Our data suggest that students with a broad interest in different disciplinary areas show different behaviour and skills toward networked learning than those with a tighter disciplinary focus for whom networked learning might be more difficult. For example, one student took a prominent role in the discussions during the workshops where she would actively connect different ideas and help to form new ones. This could be related to her bachelor level study program in sustainable innovation during which students learn to integrate insights from different disciplines.

During the workshops, the students were in contact with two experts providing practical input into the learning process, which was considered valuable by team members. The effect of timing and amount of input of experts remains an interesting subject for further research, and could also be used to further tailor the learning process to the needs of the team. The students also identified a number of potential stakeholders to consult, but since these were related to longer term goals they did not directly contacted them afterwards. The interplay with stakeholders outside the university is an interesting avenue for future research to get more insight into the societal value being created (Wenger, Trayner, and De Laat 2011). However, networked learning requires balancing inward and outward-oriented activities and tasks (Van den Beemt et al. 2018; Jones 2015).

Networked learning supports a deeper understanding of the ill-defined open-ended problem that is a characteristic of engineering education, especially when focusing on complex societal issues. However, in line with instructional design (Merrill 2009), assignments for beginners in a field or on a subject should be less open and more short-term focused to better scaffold students’ learning processes (Bächtold 2013). This would also require a better structure for catching the lessons learned and helping students to continuously work and evaluate in between different workshops. Here, ICT and online learning could be beneficial by making the learning process much more iterative and helping the students to see the connections between the different parts. Additionally, part of the work could be done outside the workshops (e.g. in the form of homework) to allow for more deep learning during the different workshops. This is in line with recent reflections on networked learning and Covid-19 and the importance of both onsite and online educational activities by Ryberg (2021).

Students also learned about the organisation setup of their team and how they could better organise themselves in the future to achieve their learning goals. This was especially the case for the Open Space studio during which the students actively reflected on the organisational setup of their team and designed a new one. Schreurs et al. (2014) showed that it takes several years for a learning network to reflect deeply on the organisational level. Thus, actively designing workshops geared towards the organisational design in an early phase can be very beneficial. The team also showed a high level of equality with an appreciation for the inputs of the different team members. The workshops also helped the team members to create a feeling of collective identity and to get insight in the learning process of other team members. We found that Lego Serious Play enabled this process, also helping the more technical people to become involved in strategic decision making by the team. Future research could focus on finding the exact networked learning settings for which Lego can be of added value.

The relation between student characteristics and their role and abilities in the networked learning process thus provides an interesting avenue for further research. This is also an important element to consider when implementing the workshops in more mainstream educational settings, with students with different characteristics than those that voluntarily join a student team in addition to their core curriculum. Scaling to more mainstream educational settings would also require university teachers to be educated in networked learning as well as the hiring of educational coordinators for practical support. We also recommend more research on the role of university teachers and educational coordinators in networked learning as a method for developing interdisciplinarity, which in turn is a key characteristic of CBL.

6.2. The role of sustainability transitions theories and concepts

During the case study workshops, we introduced various theories and concepts from the sustainability transitions literature to provide a common language between students with different backgrounds. We observed that this helped structuring strategic debates within the team. As such, transition studies form a ‘scaffolding structure’ for networked learning in transition settings, enabling students to see the different perspectives and disciplines within the group (Borrego et al. 2013; Do 2013). Using sustainability transitions concepts and theories as a structuring framework allows for a more focused strategic search for new knowledge within and outside the core team and the subsequent building of new knowledge and a shared language together. Interestingly, networked learning can also be considered as a potential contributor to the sustainability transitions field in a more general sense.

Strategic Niche Management (SNM) subscribes niche entrepreneurs to focus on deep learning and network building, two aspects that are also central to the networked learning approach (Jones 2015; Schot and Geels 2008). Future research can focus on the exact way of integrating the two theoretical fields and its applicability in different settings outside the university educational setting. We also paid special attention to the role of business models for the market implementation and up-scaling of the technology of the team (see e.g. Huijben and Verbong 2013; Zott, Amit, and Massa 2011). It would be interesting to further build on this concept by including insights from business model design literature. For example, Lund, Byrge, and Nielsen (2017) developed a business model design process that can be applied in higher education (Lund, Byrge, and Nielsen 2017). Their learning module consists of eight phases which include different skill sets: ‘preparation, establishing a creative mindset, understanding problem or situation, idea generation, professional input and idea development, value proposition design, business model opportunity spotting and business model configuration’ (Lund, Byrge, and Nielsen 2017, 84). Both sustainability transitions and sustainable business model literature focus on sustainable value creation and capture for society and can therefore support the CBL and networked learning communities in their call for tackling grand challenges (Chesbrough and Rosenbloom 2002; Foss and Saebi 2016; Geels 2002; Grin, Rotmans, and Schot 2010; Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010; Kohn Rådberg et al. 2020; Ryberg 2021; Wieczorek and Berkhout 2009; Zott, Amit, and Massa 2011). Finally, we believe the combination of networked learning and sustainability transitions theories and concepts could be applied in other educational settings as well where radical innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration and socio-technical system thinking are essential like healthcare, artificial intelligence or digital education governance (Ryberg 2021).

7. Conclusion

Applying networked learning in an engineering education setting where students work on pressing societal challenges is a very promising approach. Such challenges require contribution from multiple integrated disciplines to be tackled and an educational approach that integrates pedagogical and content knowledge (Shulman 1986). Our case study has shown that networked learning helps students that work on societal challenges to see the value of the disciplinary knowledge within their network, and to integrate that knowledge and create a common shared language. Insights from the sustainability transitions literature further support this process by providing concepts and theories that create common language and thereby integrate multiple disciplinary perspectives and that help strategic decision making.

Acknowledgements

The authors are highly grateful for the funding of the project by the Education Innovation Fund of Eindhoven University of Technology, as part of the 4TU.Centre for Engineering Education (4TU.CEE) of the Netherlands. We also would like to thank involved practitioners for their in-kind support to the project.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This project was supported by a university grant for educational innovation, offered by the 4TU.Centre for Engineering Education (4TU.CEE) in the Netherlands.

Notes on contributors

Josephina C. C. M. Huijben

Josephina C. C. M. Huijben, PhD is an assistant professor at the Innovation, Technology Entrepreneurship and Marketing (ITEM) group of Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands. She works as a teacher and researcher in the field of sustainable business models and sustainability transitions.

Antoine Van den Beemt

Antoine van den Beemt, PhD is an associate professor at the Eindhoven School of Education of Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands. He works as a teacher educator in the STEM domain. His research includes new approaches for online, blended, and networked learning.

Anna J. Wieczorek

Anna J. Wieczorek, PhD, is an associate professor in the Technology, Innovation, and Society group of Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands. She has a background in sustainability transitions in the field of (smart) energy and mobility, both in Europe and the global South.

Mieke H. Van Marion

Mieke H. van Marion, PhD, is a policy advisor education at the department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences of Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands. After her PhD in biomedical engineering she has managed and supported various education innovation projects.