Conference Agenda

This proposal is focused on open schooling initiatives and the implementation of the Living Lab (LL) methodology in the context of Science Education. It aims to encourage schools to collaborate with stakeholders in order to foster community well-being. This study focuses on analysing the projects undertaken by students when engaged in open schooling activities following principles of Living Lab methodology, by investigating how the type of prototype and stakeholder support influence students' degree of development in terms of their intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and civic engagement to participate in innovation communities. This investigation involved the participation of six nations, namely Croatia, Cyprus, France, Greece, Portugal, and Spain, each representing different educational systems. A total of 465 primary and secondary students took part in 20 projects that progressed to the Experimentation and Evaluation stages of the LL methodology. Students completed a questionnaire both before and after they carried out their projects. The data analysis revealed the three types of prototypes that students engaged in, namely (a) digital prototypes, (b) physical prototypes, and (c) services with real people. Analyses demonstrated significant impact of digital prototypes on students’ intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and civic engagement and the services involving real people had a notable impact on students' civic engagement. However, physical prototypes had no effect on the intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, or civic engagement of students. The findings suggest that the development of digital prototypes within a LL project has the potential to make teaching and learning more engaging and motivating for students, improve their self-efficacy, and enhance their participation and involvement in civic-related issues by increasing students' engagement in identifying and resolving issues of public concern. Background: A Living Lab (LL) is a virtual or physical environment in which multiple stakeholders interact to address real-world issues and co-create solutions for societal concerns in the form of technologies, services, and products (Leminen & Westerlund, 2016). Open Schooling (OS) envisions that schools, in cooperation with other stakeholders, will become agents of community well-being by creating new partnerships in their local communities (Sotiriou et al, 2021). Such an approach incorporates a diverse group of participants and brings together schools, researchers, and community stakeholders to create a user-centered ecosystem for open innovation (Alonso & Wong, 2020).

Despite the growing research interest of OS and LLs over the past several years, there are still many undiscovered aspects, especially when students from diverse cultural backgrounds co-operate with stakeholders coming from various organisations and professions in creating prototypes or implementing solutions to address real-world problems. Motivated students, willing to participate in OS research and co-creation activities, are essential for the functioning of a LL, given that the underlying philosophy is that participants’ ideas, experiences, and knowledge, as well as their everyday needs and wants, should be the starting point in innovation (Bergvall-Kareborn & Stahlbrost, 2009).

The first phase of a LL project consists of brainstorming and identifying a community issue requiring attention, followed by the design and creation of a prototype (i.e., Exploration phase), experimentation and testing of their prototype (i.e., Experimentation phase), and evaluation of the product or service (i.e., Evaluation phase). Participants are thereby actively involved as “co-creators” of the product or service; they are involved from the earliest stages of the innovation process, and their experiences and preferences are incorporated into the design of the product or service (Dekker et al., 2020). However, effective co-creation depends on the selection and use of appropriate methodologies and procedures, since they may have a substantial impact on project outcomes (Steen et al., 2011).

The past decade has indeed witnessed ambitious attempts to reform education systems and drive change on a large scale (Fullan, 2009; Qian and Walker, 2020). In response to this trend, an increasing number of district educational departments are orchestrating partnerships between universities and schools to enhance teacher learning and elevate the quality of education. Previous studies have pinpointed the elements that contribute to a beneficial university-school partnership in improving schools (Calabrese & Tan, 2018; Fisher & Firestone, 2006; Peters, 2002; Farrell et al., 2022). These studies often focus on university academics collaborating with teachers in a specific discipline or research group to support teacher learning. However, questions remain about the practical realities and challenges schools encounter when they actively engage in and strive to involve more teachers in such top-down collaborations. How can schools be more effectively motivated to lead the reform process through institutional design? These issues are significant and warrant further investigation.

This study is grounded in a three-year District-University-School (DUS) collaboration project aimed at improving six selected underperforming schools. In this initiative, the District identified six schools with developmental potential within its jurisdiction and commissioned University B to design and implement the improvement project. Guided by research literature and ongoing dialogues between the district and university departments, the project's goal was to enhance middle-level leadership in schools to foster teacher learning and professional development, thereby contributing to overall school improvement. The university team comprised seven researchers and fourteen research assistants. Six researchers were paired to oversee the enhancement work of the project, with a senior professor providing overall planning and guidance. Each school was assigned two research assistants. During the study, the two authors collaborated on two school improvement projects using an identical approach. However, the two schools showed different levels of participation. One school ultimately led the entire school's teachers to actively participate in the school improvement, while the other school always only had the same individual teacher involved in this project. Therefore, we sought to answer the following questions: (1) What conditions can facilitate successful DUS collaboration? (2) Do the conditions for successful collaboration among DUS stakeholders differ from those in US partnerships?

Several key factors have been identified as crucial for successful university-school partnerships. Firstly, shared goals, common planning, mutual respect have been highlighted as essential elements of school-university partnerships (Borthwick et al., 2003). Additionally, the professional and personal learning elements, the degree of congruence between the perspectives of school-based mentors and teacher educators has been emphasized as a factor supporting effective partnership working (Kershner et al., 2013; Marsh, 2019). The importance of fostering research engagement in partnership schools through networking and value creation that foster equality in partnerships has also been highlighted as a means to promote effective university-school partnerships (Shinners, 2006; Maskit & Orland-Barak, 2015; Cornelissen et al., 2017). But currently, few studies have revealed what are the effective conditions for partnerships between schools and universities initiated from a regional top-down perspective. This article argues that in top-down District-University-School partnerships, the District, as a representative of the district government, can utilize its administrative authority and resources to facilitate collaboration between universities and schools for school improvement. However, this top-down approach may also undermine the school's confidence in the university, leading to tepid participation in the collaborative effort. In the DUS partnership context, successful cooperation is predicated on the university members' accurate assessment of the school's needs and strategic planning for teacher and school development.

Education is a key driver of resilience against the backdrop of increasing uncertainty provoked by economic inequalities and enduring forms of social injustice. Education can offer hope, and a means to a prosperous future. Yet for many children living in poverty, school is a site in which economic inequalities are reproduced and children experience further exclusion and stigma as a result. Some 22.4% of European households with dependent children were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2022 (Eurostat 2023). In the UK, 29% of children (nine in every class of 30) are living in poverty (CPAG, 2023). Poverty has been exacerbated by multiple crises including the Covid-19 pandemic, creating inequalities in educational attainment and uncertain futures for families (JRF, 2023).

The Cost of the School Day project (CoSD), developed by two charities, the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) and Children North East (CNE), aimed to understand the barriers and challenges faced by poor children during the school day and to use this evidence to help schools reduce costs and remove stigmatising practices to bring about a fair education for children living in poverty. The CoSD team developed partnerships with schools, local and national governments, and a range of organisations, bodies and charities in order to shape policy and practice. 

Starting with the assumption that all activity is ‘social/collective’ (Daniels, 2004, p.123) and governed by rules and divisions of labour (Engeström and Sannino, 2010, p. 6); this paper will analyse how the partnerships within the CoSD project worked (affordances and ‘contradictions’) and examine the relational aspects in engaging across the partnership (Rickinson and Edwards, 2021) and how this ultimately led to change, improving the lives of children, young people and their families and enabling them to thrive and succeed.

The Cost of the School Day project (CoSD) is led by Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), a UK based charity that campaigns to end child poverty in the UK. Most education in the UK is free of charge, but there are costs incurred in respect of meals, uniforms, travel and resources that can negatively impact upon the experience of education for children and young people. The project is based on Children North East’s ‘Poverty Proofing’ model, which has been shown to be effective in surfacing stigmatising practices which negatively impact children living in poverty and achieving change in schools (Mazzoli Smith & Todd, 2016; Mazzoli Smith & Todd, 2019).

The CoSD team developed partnerships with schools, local and national governments, and a range of organisations, bodies and charities in order to shape policy and practice. For the purpose of this paper, we will be focussing on the partnership between the schools taking part and the Child Poverty Action Group. Cultural Historical Activity Theory (Engestrom) and the later work of Rickinson and Edwards on relational agency and the ‘relational features of evidence use’ (2021) were chosen as the theoretical approaches enabling us to understand the affordances that led to success as well as the challenges faced.