Abstract
Keywords
Introduction
Recent years have seen engineering and science-focused higher education institutions (HEIs) grappling with the demands of a rapidly evolving workforce, driven largely by technology (Aoun, 2017; Brankovic & Cantwell, 2022; Harrison et al., 2022; Kamp, 2020). Graduates now require not just technical skills but also a commitment to lifelong learning and societal awareness (Aoun, 2017).
Amid this evolving landscape, a consensus is emerging among scholars, practitioners, academic leaders, and students regarding the intricate interrelationship between societal demands, the contributions of science and technology HEIs (S&T HEIs), and the shifting expectations of the student population. This convergence has birthed framings for pedagogical innovation, that is, principles, understandings, and experiences that guide our perceptions of current experiences, evaluations of the prevailing landscape, and visions of future prospects (Flavin, 2023; Goffman, 1974; Schot & Steinmueller, 2018). Two primary frames have emerged. The first focuses on structural changes to the curriculum, such as micro-credentials, while the second emphasizes new teaching, learning, and assessment methods, often termed “innovative pedagogies.” While significant research has covered the first frame (Bajada et al., 2019; David & Hill, 2020; Galpin et al., 2022; Olivares et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2023), less attention has been given to understanding student experiences within the learning ecosystems shaped by the second frame.
Our study advocates for visual participatory methodologies, such as Photovoice, to delve into students’ perceptions of pedagogical innovation in Science and Technology HEIs. We aim to uncover authentic student experiences and analyze the impact of innovative pedagogies on both specialized and transdisciplinary knowledge. We argue for a stronger emphasis on the second framing, given its relevance in addressing the complexities of human-centered engineering education (Graham, 2018; Kamp, 2019). However, the first frame remains relevant and could further enrich higher education. A synergistic approach that incorporates both framings can be expected in real-world applications.
In this paper, we first examine two types of pedagogical innovation—structural and process—detailing their innovation models, practices, and actors. Next, we discuss our use of Photovoice to explore innovative teaching in a science and technology learning setting. We identify four key clusters of innovative pedagogies and discuss their implications. The paper concludes with our final thoughts on the study’s contributions to the field.
Framing 1: Structural Innovation for innovative pedagogies
The ecosystem model, as proposed by Cooke et al. (2004) and Finegold (1999), lays the foundation for structural innovation in higher education. At its core, this model depicts how HEIs collaborate with a range of organizations and stakeholders to amplify the creation and assimilation of relevant knowledge and skills (Bedford et al., 2018; Reichert, 2019). Stemming from this innovation model, several dimensions and diverse practices, as outlined in Table 1, have emerged to address societal challenges and sustainability objectives (David & Hill, 2020; UNESCO, 2021).
Framing 1. Structural innovation.
Prompted by this shift, innovative models of cooperation and connectivity have sprung up. In Europe, the European Commission actively invested in a reformed governance framework for cooperation and co-creation, resulting, among other things, in the further rollout of the European Universities initiative with support to transnational alliances of higher education institutions developing long-term structural, strategic, and sustainable cooperation creating inter-university campuses (European Commission, 2022).
The goal of such models is twofold: transforming curricula and overhauling organizational practices. Parallelly, the rise of digital transition and the expansion of transnational education have paved the way for novel online learning practices (Kahn & Misiaszek, 2019; Law & Baer, 2020; Ullberg, 2015). These complement traditional internationalization practices, propelling networked and integral mobility opportunities for both students and staff.
However, a one-size-fits-all approach is ineffective; instead, curricula require flexibility and adaptability. Modern curricula demand both flexibility and adaptability (Bajada et al., 2019). The upswing in interdisciplinary and entrepreneurial projects centered on sustainability underscores the emerging role of universities as harbingers of societal change and leaders within the ecosystem (El Zomor et al., 2018; Reichert, 2019; Thomas et al., 2021). This evolution aligns with prior research that championed collaborative learning and partnership-driven curriculum design (Parmelee & Michaelsen, 2010; Tytler et al., 2011). Amid these changes, the focus is bifurcated: one branch prioritizes student centrality and co-creation while the other accentuates refining faculty pedagogical strategies via technology (Law & Baer, 2020).
In this ever-evolving landscape, HEIs continue to spotlight the significance of degree programs, but with an added layer. They are progressively enriching their offerings with continuous educational programs. One standout trend in this context is the rapid ascent of micro-credentials, especially in light of the changing demands of the labor market (European Commission, 2020; Iucu et al., 2021; Lantero et al., 2021; McGreal & Olcott, 2022; OECD, 2021).
Framing 2: Process innovation through innovative pedagogies
This paper predominantly addresses process innovation, probing into pedagogies and practices viewed as transformative by S&T students. Process innovation in higher education involves introducing and implementing new pedagogical approaches that significantly transform teaching, learning, and assessment practices. It transcends the mere transfer of content, focusing instead on reshaping the interactions between educators and learners. This transformation is achieved through the creative restructuring and application of diverse pedagogical approaches, which are adaptable to various cultural and educational contexts. These pedagogies aim to convey content and foster skill, value, and habit development. They are reflective of a dynamic pedagogical landscape where educators, acting as designers of learning, make informed decisions to achieve a clear and purposeful impact on students’ learning outcomes (Fraser, 2019; OECD, 2018)
In this context, process innovation is influenced by the evolving demands of modern curricula, which emphasize core competencies, transversal skills, and general capabilities. This focus drives pedagogical strategies toward promoting active learning, self-regulation, and metacognition, enabling students to play an active role in managing their learning journey (Palmer & Giering, 2024; Serdyukov, 2017). Such pedagogical innovations aim to broaden and deepen the skills acquired by students, addressing the accessibility of education, the engagement, and sense of belonging of those most affected by educational inequalities (Palmer & Giering, 2024, p. 2).
While process innovation concentrates on the methodologies and practices, altering the very fabric of teaching and learning, structural innovation pertains to the broader organizational frameworks and infrastructures within educational institutions (Jakovljevic, 2018; Li et al., 2022). Structural innovation involves significant changes in organizational structures, governance models, and institutional partnerships (Howells & Edler, 2011). It focuses on altering the broader context of education delivery, like the creation of new academic programs or collaborations with external entities, thereby redefining institutional roles and responsibilities. Complementarily, process innovation is intimately connected to the immediate educational activities, directly targeting the enhancement of teaching effectiveness and learning experiences (Yordanova, 2021).
Scholarly discussions categorize these pedagogical approaches into distinct clusters of innovative pedagogies (Ciolan et al., 2021; Herodotou et al., 2019; Istance & Paniagua, 2019; Paniagua & Istance, 2018; UNESCO, 2021). As an example, the OECD (Paniagua & Istance, 2018) defines six clusters, including multiliteracies, blended learning, gamification, experiential learning, computational thinking, and embodied learning. The CIVIS European University delineates a different classification: technology-based, methodology-based, skill-based, and context-driven/real-world-driven pedagogical innovations (Ciolan et al., 2021, p. 10). Herodotou et al. (2019) advance an evidence-based suite of innovative pedagogical approaches like formative analytics, teachback, place-based learning, and more.
Despite the absence of a universally accepted nomenclature for these clusters or their encompassed innovative pedagogies, the Open University’s 2023 report endorses a flexible approach, positing that such adaptability permits educators to reflect upon and adjust to evolving practices (Kukulska-Hulme et al., 2023, p. 6).
Rooted in the symbiosis between fostering 21st-century skills and the urgency to transform education for unpredictable futures (Graham, 2018; OECD, 2019; UNESCO, 2021), this relationship has catalyzed a model of pedagogical innovation characterized by purposefulness, impact, and entrepreneurial spirit (van der Zwaan, 2017)—refer to Table 2.
Framing 2: Process innovation.
Existing research, especially in the domain of S&T education, underscores the inadequacies of conventional lecture-driven pedagogy in higher education (Deslauriers et al., 2011, 2019). Evidence indicates that traditional methods inadequately foster learning gains or promote 21st-century skills. More potent teaching techniques prioritize interactive engagement, fortify learners’ personal and professional identities, elevate inclusivity, build a sense of community, and foster research-based learning (Kukulska-Hulme et al., 2023). Conventional instructor-led paradigms are evolving into dynamic, student-centered learning experiences (Murillo-Zamorano et al., 2019), emphasizing empathy, and real-world challenges. Such methodologies not only deepen knowledge but also instill transformative skills. Approaches like game-based learning, research-based learning, challenged-based learning, and problem-based learning are particularly salient in this innovative pedagogical landscape.
Consequently, within the framing of innovative pedagogies, S&T universities advocate for an ecosystem view of learning, spotlighting places, partnerships, and individuals as pivotal design pillars. Embracing active learning paradigms (Deslauriers et al., 2019; Freeman et al., 2014) allows learners to immerse in interactive, authentic, and challenging experiences that enhance retention and learning outcomes. Process innovation recognizes that the core elements of education—learners, educators, content, and learning resources—come together through pedagogical and assessment practices. These practices encompass different uses of educational time and collaborative or individual work by educators and learners. Thus, far-reaching transformation in education through process innovation implies changes in the conditions under which these core elements effectively interact and contribute to the educational experience (Istance & Paniagua, 2019).
Implementing innovative pedagogies in disciplines like science, technology, and engineering signifies a radical departure from traditional methods, resonating with the fresh lifelong learning ethos championed by modern educators (Keinänen & Kairisto-Mertanen, 2019). Echoing Istance and Paniagua (2019), the entrenchment of these innovative pedagogies necessitates a conducive environment that diversifies educator profiles while endorsing hybrid learning milieus.
Photovoice: Evolution and impact in participatory research methodologies
In recent years, visual participatory methodologies have gained prominence in research, offering innovative ways to engage participants and capture their experiences. The groundbreaking work of Wang and Burris in 1997 (Wang & Burris, 1997) not only pioneered but also revolutionized these methodologies. Among these innovations, Photovoice stands out as a methodological beacon, evolving from their seminal work. Defined as a participatory action research technique, Photovoice empowers participants to use photography as a means to visually narrate and critically analyze their personal and societal contexts (Bandauko & Arku, 2023; Harley, 2012; Sutton-Brown, 2014). This self-directed visual capture of life situations, actions, and states without external intrusion is the essence of Photovoice Visual Methodology (PVM), providing a multifaceted examination of both objective and subjective dimensions of human behavior.
Initially, photovoice carved its niche as a voice for the marginalized, serving as a potent platform for these groups to make their perspectives both seen and heard (Hernandez et al., 2014). Since its inception by Wang and Burris (1997), photovoice has transcended its initial scope, permeating various fields such as education, public health, anthropology, economics, social geography, and international development. This widespread adoption, as documented by Golden (2020), Guell and Ogilvie (2015), Power et al. (2014), Sutton-Brown (2014), and Rania et al. (2021) signifies its versatility and effectiveness as a participatory tool.
The digital era and the rise of posthumanism, as discussed by Ferlatte et al. (2022), Oliffe et al. (2023), and Warfield (2017), have further expanded photovoice’s horizons. The integration of digital technology and social media has given birth to virtual photovoice, a novel extension that enriches the methodology’s scope and depth, as explored in the works of Ferlatte et al. (2022) and Oliffe et al. (2023). Our research taps into this contemporary evolution, specifically focusing on the application of photovoice in the study of innovative pedagogies within higher education settings. The visual and participatory essence of photovoice is uniquely suited to capture and interpret student perceptions in this context.
PVM offers several methodological strengths. It enables access to intricate settings and subjective experiences that traditional retrospective or observational research methods may overlook. It empowers participants, fostering a sense of ownership, and active engagement in the research process, thereby creating spaces for deeper interpretation. For instance, the immediacy of photographing real-life experiences reduces bias associated with retrospective reporting. Additionally, PVM provides an intimate perspective on the innovative pedagogies implemented in higher education.
Rooted in the foundational epistemologies of empowerment education, feminist theory, and documentary photography (Ciolan & Manasia, 2017), our application of photovoice is a deliberate strategy to investigate the subjective lived experiences of individuals. These frameworks underscore the pivotal role of individual agency in driving community change and progress. Through the lens of these epistemologies, photovoice emerges not just as a research tool, but as a transformative medium to delve into and articulate personal narratives and perspectives, thereby reshaping the dynamics of academic communities and learning environments.
The present study
Taking a participatory approach, we aimed to understand the perceptions and perspectives of Science and Technology (S&T) students regarding learning experiences shaped by innovative pedagogies, with the goal of developing clusters of these pedagogies to inform higher education learning design. The study was purposefully designed to empower undergraduate and graduate students to capture and interpret subjective learning experiences through photovoice, facilitating an in-depth understanding of the pedagogies underpinning those experiences.
Thus, the study seeks to:
Understand how S&T students experience and interpret innovative pedagogies in various disciplines within an S&T university setting (Research Question 1).
Identify the attributes and characteristics of innovative pedagogies as perceived by S&T students, exploring how these perceptions can inform a bottom-up categorization of pedagogical practices (Research Question 2).
By addressing these research questions, the study aims to contribute to the field of process innovation in S&T education, advocating for a more human-centered and participatory approach to teaching and learning.
Methods
Researchers’ description and positionality
In our commitment to reflexivity and ethical transparency, we, LC and LM, acknowledge the influence of our extensive backgrounds in educational policy, cognitive sciences, and innovative pedagogies on this study. Our collective experiences have inevitably colored our approach, from conception to analysis. LC’s rich policy background and LM’s pragmatic focus on applied qualitative methodologies have both contributed to and challenged our interpretation of data, ensuring a layered understanding of pedagogical innovation. We have translated our teaching expertise into the research, aiming to bridge academic inquiry with pedagogical practice. Through sustained dialogic reflexivity—engaging in both online and in-person discussions—we have critically evaluated our preconceptions and maintained a dynamic self-awareness. Our phenomenological perspective underscores the participatory essence of our methodology, recognizing our contributive role in interpreting the nuanced narratives of our participants. By sharing our introspections and by encouraging participant verification of our findings, we have sought to uphold the integrity of our research and foster resonance with a broader audience.
Recruitment of participants
The study focused on undergraduate and graduate students at a S&T HEI in South-Eastern Europe. Recruitment was completed using a purposeful sampling strategy (Emmel, 2013; Patton, 2015) through university social media channels, online flyers, and posters, aiming to engage a diverse group of students and ensure varied perspectives. Researchers followed up with 127 potential participants, and sent them project details and a digitally hosted consent form via Survey Alchemer™. Of these, 63 completed the consent process and agreed to participate in initial group meetings. Ultimately, 43 participants (33% of the initial group) actively engaged in the study.
The participants’ ages ranged from 19 to 52 years old (
Participation was voluntary, with students fully informed about their rights, including the option to withdraw. Incentives, in the form of gift cards, were provided upon project completion.
The study embarked on exploring the diverse experiences within a particular group, yet it recognizes that its insights may not entirely encompass the wide array of experiences across the entire student spectrum. However, the primary aim was to capture experiences that could inspire innovative learning designs, and therefore contribute to pedagogical process innovation.
Photovoice group meetings
Participation in the project involved several steps, beginning with an introductory training session where participants met online with the study coordinators. During two comprehensive training sessions, participants were acquainted with the study’s objectives, the photovoice methodology, ethical considerations specific to this research (first session), and techniques for developing narratives to accompany their photographs (second session). This included guidance on photo title creation and providing a contextual description for each image. The delivery of study prompts occurred during the first session.
Drawing inspiration from the OECD’s innovative pedagogy clusters (Paniagua & Istance, 2018), a flexible framework was designed to identify and collect examples of practices from ten universities members of a European University Alliance. The process led to the identification of transversal themes such as cooperation, real-world application, extracurricular learning, collaborative teaching, and technological integration, pivotal in contemporary higher education.
The themes were molded into five prompts, orienting participants to document and reflect upon various innovative aspects of university life, from collaborative projects to the application of technology in learning. The prompts included:
Cooperation: “Capture moments from team projects, international collaborations, internships, or valuable peer feedback.”
Into the Real World: Showcase experiences from internships, moments applying university knowledge, facing real-world challenges, or feeling empowered in your learning.
Beyond the Classroom: “Share instances from activities outside of your regular classes that helped you learn and grow.”
Multiple Voices in Teaching: “Capture sessions where multiple instructors teach together.”
Tech Assistance: “Show us how technology facilitated your learning process.”
For narrative development, a semi-structured approach was employed. This guided participants to delve into what was seen in each picture, connect it to personal experiences, and contemplate the innovative context. Ethical considerations, particularly concerning photography in educational settings, were rigorously discussed, advising participants to obtain consent and avoid direct front-view shots to maintain privacy.
These training sessions also provided opportunities for participants to address concerns, clarify the photovoice process, and foster a sense of community. This not only facilitated a deeper understanding of the project but also helped build rapport between participants and researchers, creating a collaborative and respectful research environment.
Data collection
After the second group meeting, participants commenced photographing from March 2021 to document and reflect on process innovation. Our study, conducted over three semesters from March 2021 to June 2022 and approved by the Ethics Committee (Ref. No. 16027/09/12/2020), coincided with the pandemic’s online and hybrid learning phases.
We implemented Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM), as per Zirkel et al. (2015), to guide participants in timing their photography. The selection process mixed random and event-based sampling, following Bolger and Laurenceau’s (2013) protocol. For random sampling, the researchers sent morning text messages to prompt participants to photograph daily learning activities, such as courses or labs. Complementarily, event-based sampling was driven by participants, focusing on capturing their learning activities that exemplified process innovation.
Participants contributed their photographs and accompanying narratives to the Survey Alchemer platform, creating a dynamic online collection. In May and November of 2021, and February and June of 2022, four focus groups were organized each month, resulting in a total of 16 sessions (
The focus-group discussions progressed in distinct stages. Initially, participants introduced themselves. Next, they analyzed selected photos using the SHOWED structured dialogue technique (Wang & Burris, 1997), which involved contextualizing the images. A key methodological feature was the use of dialogue bubble exercises. Researchers added empty speech or thought bubbles to photos, representing the subjects’ thoughts, feelings, or actions. Participants then “filled in” these bubbles by responding to SHOWED questions, such as their perceptions of the image, the subjects’ mindset, and insights into innovative aspects of the experience depicted in the photo. All focus groups were recorded and manually transcribed. The photographs selected by participants were inserted into each transcript.
In total, participants submitted 231 photographs (Range: 1–11,
Data analysis
In this study, we incorporated a participatory approach into our data analysis, which was conducted in two distinct stages. The initial stage was collaborative, with participants actively contributing as co-researchers during focus group discussions. In the second stage, researchers utilized Atlas.ti software (version 22) to conduct a detailed analysis of photographs, narratives, and focus group transcripts.
The methodological core of data analysis was Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA; Smith, 2004; Smith et al., 2009), selected for its efficacy in making researchers being part of the co-creation of participants’ meaning-making (Love et al., 2020, p. 1). We applied IPA to both the focus group transcriptions (Love et al., 2020) and the picture narratives. This approach provided insights into process innovation from both the learners’ and researchers’ perspectives.
During the re-examination phase, researchers reviewed the transcriptions and narratives to identify significant learning experiences and potential relationships. This step involved highlighting and annotating key participant quotes using descriptive codes and conceptual comments. An important aspect of this analysis was understanding how participants discussed each picture, determining whether their experiences were unique or shared with others. The collected data and observations were then grouped based on their conceptual and experiential commonalities. This process led to the identification of several emergent themes, such as people, places, empathy, ecosystems, sustainability, technology, and future orientation.
In the synthesis phase, we clustered these emergent themes to represent various innovative pedagogies and employing contextualization and subsumption techniques. The resulting clusters included Hero Pedagogies, Community and Solidarity Pedagogies, Sustainable Green Pedagogies, and Technology Enhanced Pedagogies. Each category was labeled to reflect the conceptual essence of the underlying themes. These categories, along with their major themes, are visually represented in the results section for a comprehensive overview.
Methodological integrity
This study has been conscientiously designed to ensure that the findings are robust, credible, and methodologically sound. To ascertain the adequacy of the data, the research sample was selected purposefully to reflect the diversity of student experiences in S&T education. We included students across various disciplines and academic levels, ensuring a variety of perspectives that relate closely to the questions and goals of our inquiry.
The research team’s perspectives, which span expertise in education policy, cognitive sciences, and innovative pedagogies, were systematically managed to limit their influence on data collection and to inform a systematic analysis. Reflexivity was exercised through regular dialogic sessions, which served as a platform for examining and mitigating biases and for enhancing the depth and integrity of the analysis.
The integrity of our claims was further bolstered by the contribution of the participants to the data analysis. Participants have access to all collected photographs and narratives, and triangulation was conducted across multiple sources, including photographic data, narratives, and focus group discussions. Additionally, an adaptation of the IPA protocol for focus groups was used, following the best practice example provided by Love et al. (2020). Furthermore, the data collected are openly available.
Our findings are rooted in the empirical evidence gathered through the photovoice methodology. Students’ narratives and photographs served as the primary data, from which thematic patterns were derived. The rich visual and narrative data provided a direct lens into the students’ experiences, ensuring that the conclusions drawn were grounded in the participants’ own words and views. We have endeavoured to ensure that our contributions are insightful and carry meaningful implications for the wider educational landscape. This was achieved by mapping our findings against the current literature on innovative pedagogies and process innovation in higher education, thereby situating our study within the broader academic conversation. Consistency in analysis was maintained using Atlas.ti software, which facilitated the identification of themes and ensured a systematic approach to data handling.
Findings are presented in a coherent narrative, explaining contradictions and reconciling discrepancies where necessary. The utility of our findings in addressing the research problem was continuously evaluated, with the practical implications for pedagogical innovation in S&T education forming a cornerstone of our analysis. This evaluative lens ensured that our research outcomes were not only theoretically sound but also practically relevant and capable of informing pedagogical strategies in higher education.
Results
In this article, we present a participatory research study designed to explore students’ frames on innovative pedagogies within an S&T university. By triangulating visual data obtained through photovoice with narrative data sourced from students’ accompanying explanatory stories, and focus groups, we have discerned four principal categories, which we refer to as “clusters of innovative pedagogies.” These include: (1) Hero Pedagogies, (2) Community and Solidarity Pedagogies, (3) Sustainable Green Pedagogies, and (4) Technology Enhanced Pedagogies. The clusters were intentionally labeled based on their distinct attributes to provide educators with a practical language to guide learning design. These categories encapsulating the clusters of innovative pedagogies are grounded in a range of interconnected themes. Refer to Figure 1 for the specific themes of people, places, empathy, ecosystems, sustainability, technology, and future orientation.
Main themes and clusters of innovative pedagogies.
The ensuing sections delve deeper into each cluster of innovative pedagogies, complemented by illustrative photos and direct verbatim quotes from picture narratives, and SHOWeD focus groups.
Hero Pedagogies
As visually represented by the students, Hero Pedagogies constitute innovative pedagogies that strongly underscore the nurturing of empathy and the promotion of the “duende” concept within S&T courses, as well as complementary learning activities. Duende, traditionally associated with flamenco music and other art forms, refers to the mystical or powerful force emanating from a performer that captivates the audience (Lopera-Auñón et al., 2022). In Federico García Lorca’s (2010) words, duende is a deep, inner force rather than mere behavior or concept, representing a powerful emotional awakening. These pedagogies aspire to engender a transformative learning journey that transcends conventional teaching techniques by incorporating elements of storytelling, empathy cultivation, and personal development (Figure 2).
Attributes of Hero pedagogies.
At the heart of Hero Pedagogies lies the emphasis on nurturing empathy, inspiring students to foster deep comprehension of diverse perspectives and experiences. As articulated by M.L., an undergraduate student, “Our course began consistently with music, with activities like open debates sparking our ideas.” Partaking in empathy-boosting activities such as role-playing, immersive narratives, and reflective dialogs helps students experience the lives of others, fostering compassion and broadening social responsibility. In sync with this, M.P., a postgraduate student, added that “Our lab sessions always started with a narrative. The story clearly resonated with the students, as seen when they gradually turned their cameras on.” Additionally, V.D. emphasized the teacher’s focus on introspection and societal contribution, expressing the teacher’s constant inquiry about “our role, our contribution, and how we can effect change” (refer to Figure 3a).
You simply feel that those teachers like what they do: (a) We felt like the teacher cared about us and our development, (b) They either have it or they don’t. It’ s like the “duende,” and (c) We just spread some magic.
Undergraduate student A.T. succinctly explained the teacher’s engagement and resulting joy in learning through the concept of “duende,” an enhanced sense of passion, authenticity, and creativity. A.T. observed, “This image (refer to Figure 3b) isn’t about complexity. It’s all about the feeling evoked by the teacher. They either have it or they don’t. It’s like the ‘duende.’”
Teachers using Hero Pedagogies inspire students to recognize and harness their individual talents, passions, and creativity, thereby creating a learning environment that encourages risk-taking and exploration of personal strengths. These pedagogies empower students to take control of their learning journey and express themselves genuinely. As Master’s student F.T. depicted in Figure 3c, “We took part in a simple task. We crafted a game and then taught high school students about virtual reality and other technologies. It was highly rewarding to share our knowledge and passion for technology.” In Hero Pedagogies, teachers focus on not only people and their needs but also rejuvenating place-based education, as explained by A.P.: The images (see Figure 4) were created during our Computer-Aided Design class. Autocad is new to us, and being beginners, we need to work on simple elements (lines, circles, squares, etc.). To break away from monotony, our teacher proposed an interesting project - creating a traditional Romanian blouse (‘ie’). He asked us if we have grandparents in the countryside or if we can send pictures of the traditional attire from our region. As such, the classes became colorful, but full of challenges, as it’s not as simple as it seems.
To break away from monotony, our teacher proposed an interesting project: (a) Connecting old with new and (b) its complicated, but I like it.
A Hero Pedagogies classroom often blurs the traditional boundaries between subjects by employing interdisciplinary approaches to address real-world problems. Over the span of three semesters, the students captured images showcasing their involvement in collaborative projects, problem-solving activities, and creative endeavors requiring them to draw from multiple disciplines and perspectives (Figure 5). This interdisciplinary approach fosters critical thinking, creativity, and the development of well-rounded individuals capable of tackling complex global issues, as R.A. concluded, “In my opinion, making connections between different subjects and fields is a clear indicator that students fully understand the phenomenon and are increasingly prepared for the future.”
It was a fantastic experience and I almost wished that the lab session would never end. (a) I really visualized my thesis and its impact, (b) The connections are there. It takes a good teacher to make you see them, and (c) We used balloons to visualize customer emotions.
Further, the cultivation of interdisciplinary connections facilitates a transition from “making to learning” (Chounta et al., 2017; Kamp, 2019). The students metaphorically described this shift as not only “fun” and “human-centered,” but also “fantastic,” as T.P. enthusiastically shared: Sometimes it seems to us that the things we learn in university don’t really connect to each other. Actually, I think it depends a lot on the professor and the way they create connections. I never would have believed that I could learn about medical imaging and artificial intelligence through Lego (refer to Figure 5a). It was a fantastic experience and I almost wished that the lab session would never end.
Community and Solidarity Pedagogies
The second category surfacing from the student-taken photographs relates to the notions of “Community” and “Solidarity Pedagogies.” Within these visual narratives, the codes “community,” “team,” and “individual connections” are prominent.
Contrary to conventional perceptions of and approaches to learning that promote teacher as a primary source of information and encourage students to adopt rereading learning strategies (Dunlosky et al., 2013; Rohrer & Pashler, 2010) students associated their experiences with these pedagogies as profound moments of “togetherness.” This shifted their understanding of learning from a structured academic task to a collaborative venture with a collective purpose (Rajeswarie et al., 2022; see Figure 6).
Attributes of community and solidarity pedagogies.
One enlightening perspective, as presented by R.A., an undergraduate in Business Administration, emphasizes that the foundational community is the student body itself. Pedagogical techniques like debates not only spur student engagement but also cultivate a strong sense of learner community. In R.A.’s words: The images were captured some time ago, but I kept waiting for a better moment. Today, I realized that this “moment” doesn’t exist, as I was trying to “capture” words in a photograph. The photos were taken during the seminar hour for the subject of commercial legislation. All the seminars were unconventional, as they were based on open discussions, starting with a problem and aiming to discover its solution. The professor created various case studies/exercises based on real-life situations and experiences she had over time. From this experience, I learned that debate should be used more often in the online environment. Every detail was analyzed, from the first sentence to the last; questions were raised, and other scenarios were crafted based on the given case. We judged, analyzed, and critiqued the choices of “Gigi” (the main character and the epitome of mischief :)), tried to assist him by offering solutions, all under the guidance of the professor. [. . .]. And it’s very important that we felt like a team. It seemed like we all had a common goal.
Promoting a sense of togetherness in learning yields outcomes that students often describe as both “empowering” and “surprising.” Consider the account of T.P., an undergraduate from Applied Sciences. She detailed a charitable initiative where both educators and students played active roles. This collective effort subsequently became the foundation for introducing statistical analysis. T.P. characterized the entire experience as not only “unexpected” but profoundly “humane.” Fostering a sense of belonging and promoting active engagement, these pedagogies cultivate an environment of support and empowerment in education. This sentiment was echoed by A.I.P., an undergraduate in Applied Chemistry and Materials Science. Through a photograph (see Figure 7a), A.I.P. conveyed not just the factual details but also the underlying emotions, stating: “This image underscores the proactive approach of the professors and students from the Faculty of Chemistry and Material Science. They did not stand by idly amidst the prevailing circumstances but chose to extend help where it was crucially needed, like providing disinfectants to the community.”
We felt like doing something really useful and we worked as a team: (a) We made a real impact when the people needed disinfectants the most, (b) It was challenging but I learned a lot, and (c) I synthesized a nanomaterial with applications in cancer treatment.
Complementing the observations above, the learning derived from the application of community and solidarity pedagogies was not just “humane” and “connected to real world,” but it was deeply people-oriented and promoted sustainability. In reflecting on these educational experiences, students’ narratives pivoted more around emotions and individuals rather than mere course material. For students like F.T., it was an enriching journey: “Our semester project was mentored by a corporate tutor. Engaging directly with them and even testing my proposed solution on actual people made the experience meaningful. Knowing that someone might implement my idea someday made the effort worthwhile.” On the other hand, F.N. experienced a surge of empathy, stating, “Interacting with visually impaired individuals was transformative. Reading about their condition is one thing, but meeting them and discovering their vibrant personalities drove me to learn more and potentially make a difference in their lives.” Yet for some, like A.D., a master’s student, dealing directly with the intended beneficiaries was challenging: “During one of our three cybersecurity workshops, which was held in person, it proved difficult to maintain their engagement and attention.”
An extension of the togetherness and interconnected learning is the promotion of societal issues and their critical understanding. M.L. described as “fascinating” a chemistry project where he synthesized a nanomaterial with applications in cancer treatment: “The image displays (Figure 7c) the result of a project from the Chemistry course, which involved the synthesis of a nanomaterial with magnetic properties, specifically magnetite, for use in cancer treatment. This material can be directed through the body using a magnetic field, allowing for targeted action and minimizing contamination of the entire body. I found it utterly fascinating to see that the things I’m learning can genuinely help sick people.”
From the standpoint of an S&T university, a significant observation was that the concept of community also entailed students honing entrepreneurial skill sets and mindsets, while broadening their spectrum of educators. Students relished interactions within the ecosystem, engaging with industry professionals, accomplished entrepreneurs, and alumni (see Figure 8). Some students characterized this mode of learning as “learning for success.” V.B. elaborated on this, referring to Figure 8a: “A synergy through a public-private partnership aiming for sustainability. It’s a fortuitous collaboration between the knowledgeable and the doers. Essentially, it’s about learning geared towards success.” Interacting with others is inspiring, as A.I.P. explained in relation to Figure 8b: “This image represents the fact that the University shows us examples of people who have managed to do something wonderful after graduating from this faculty.” Moreover, enriching the interaction between students and the larger community has the potential to channel students’ energy and motivate them towards personal success, as A.M.B. explained: “I think that if teenagers and students seek out meetings with people they admire or who at least inspire them in some way, they will feel increasingly free, and the appetite will come with eating.”
It’s a fortuitous collaboration between the knowledgeable and the doers: (a) An excellent opportunity to make university more practical and (b) Getting to know successful alumni.
Broadening the scope of ecosystem interactions equipped students to be better prepared for the future by harmonizing theoretical knowledge with practical application. A.M.B. delved into the contrast between theory and hands-on experience, emphasizing that engagements with individuals beyond the academic sphere enhance the applicability of their education and the competencies sought by employers: We all know how often it happens that during a job interview you’re asked about your experience in the field. And how can you have experience if you’ve just graduated? Thus, the best approach is to combine theory with practice while still in college. Not to mention as early as during primary school. Direct contact with the environment of a future workplace, meetings with specialists in the field, volunteering, internships, and specialized practice are solutions that support both the student and the employer.
Sustainable Green Pedagogies
The third cluster of innovative pedagogies is Sustainable Green Pedagogies, This cluster is distinctly future-oriented, emphasizing environmental sustainability. Central to this theme are codes such as “sustainability,” “responsibility,” “sustainable development goals,” and “planet” (Figure 9). Through this pedagogical approach, students experience ecological consciousness, engage in sustainable practices, and shape themselves into responsible guardians of our environment.
Attributes of green pedagogies.
Students emphasize that the essence of Sustainable Green Pedagogies lies in addressing the pressing environmental challenges and envisioning a sustainable future. M.L. commented on a project regarding energy types, stating, “What was different for this topic was that we discussed extensively about how this type of energy can contribute to the development of communities and how it can affect them. We even searched for reports and other news discussing the difficulty of recycling” (refer to Figure 10b).
Green learning blurs the boundaries between subjects and disciplines: (a) It is the time to take action and do more for the Planet, (b) Green energy can help communities, and (c) We tackled real-world problems using clay and other materials.
Sustainable Green Pedagogies seamlessly integrate environmental education across a spectrum of disciplines. This integration results in a comprehensive understanding of ecological systems, climate change, biodiversity, and the interplay between human endeavors and nature. As A.L. elaborated, “The photograph captures the opening slide of the EduLab session, featuring topics on economic sustainability, environmental issues, and societal challenges. Participation in this project stood out as we explored a range of topics, albeit within fewer disciplines” (see Figure 10a). A notable characteristic of Sustainable Green Pedagogies, as experienced by students like A.B., is the encouragement of hands-on, immersive learning. This can occur within classroom settings or in natural environments. Delving into urgent planetary issues empowers students to face future sustainability challenges more confidently. A.B. recalls, “Initially, it felt like play. However, with the teacher’s guidance, we tackled real-world problems using clay and other materials” (see Figure 10c).
Drawing a comparison, A.I. equated learning with Sustainable Green Pedagogies to “visible learning,” noting, “The topics we delved into were tangible and pertinent. We utilized Lego bricks to navigate scenarios and propose solutions” (see Figure 11a). When solving real world challenges, students actively engage in practical activities, including ecological restoration, organic gardening, energy conservation, waste reduction, and sustainable design (as shown in Figure 11). Such hands-on experiences not only deepen their understanding of sustainability but also equip them to actively contribute to a greener future. Highlighting a unique aspect, R.S. mentioned, “While green topics weren’t always the core focus during classes, we encountered them in diverse activities.” In the context of international educational initiatives, involvement in Erasmus+ projects or affiliating with a European University Alliance has notably augmented student knowledge and active participation in sustainability efforts. A.T. elucidated, “The image (referring to Figure 11b) showcases an infographic I conceptualized for the Circular EELISA Community. My engagement therein enriched my understanding of smart cities, 15-min city concepts, and various facets of sustainable development.”
Green learning means solving real-world problems: (a) Using Lego bricks to navigate scenarios and propose solutions for real-world problems and (b) Boosting my understanding of smart cities.
Technology Enhanced Pedagogies
The fourth cluster pertains to innovative pedagogies leveraging technology to amplify and reshape the learning experience, hence termed as “Technology Enhanced Pedagogies.” Such pedagogies exploit the capabilities of digital tools, platforms, and resources to foster interactive, engaging, and personalized learning (Figure 12).
Attributes of technology enhanced pedagogies.
Students consistently appreciated the infusion of technology in education, perceiving it as a catalyst for a more engaging and relevant learning journey. For instance, A.M., referencing Figure 13c, emphasized: Microscopy Laboratory. Topic: Industry, innovation, and infrastructure. I really liked that, even though there’s a pandemic, the professor took us in small groups to work in the lab, emphasizing that the practical aspect is very important and that the role of engineers is to solve problems. When I took the picture, he told us that problems cannot be solved just from in front of a computer, but we need to interact with people and with equipment.
Echoing the sentiment, A.I. highlighted the tangible sense of learning facilitated by technology. Referring to Figure 13b, he articulated: Setting parameters for the drone. When we actually work with the equipment, we truly feel that we are learning. Otherwise, it’s just theory. Pythagoras’ theorem didn’t save the world, but a drone can deliver medicine or reach people who need help.
Another dimension of Technology Enhanced Pedagogies introduced learners to previously uncharted learning avenues. A.B. discussed her novel experiences with online platforms, referencing Figure 13a as something that added to her “student tale”: The photos capture the teams created on the Teams platform (Figure 13a) or, in other words, they capture the story of online student life. While they might seem like boring names, analyzing them made me realize they capture a form of learning that was unfamiliar to me before - group learning. Every time we faced difficulties, my classmates and I formed such teams. We set up long meetings (some lasting 5 hours), went over exercises from classes again, explained information to each other, and constantly helped one another. This method not only helped us achieve good results but also cope with the stress caused by the lack of direct interaction.
(a) The story of online student life, (b) We truly feel that we are learning, and (c) Problems cannot be solved just from in front of a computer.
Collaborative learning was significantly amplified via technology. B.T. shared her enriching experience collaborating with peers from a European University Alliance, and her testimony underscores technology’s role in bolstering not just learning, but human connections (see Figure 14a). “I participated in activities within one of the EELISA communities. There were some activities we did only online because of the pandemic, but it was extraordinary. I never believed I could learn and have fun with people I’ve only seen online.”
We are connected: (a) Technology boosts human connections as well, (b) If we aren’t at the university, then the professors brought the university to our homes, (c) Simulations merge theoretical knowledge with practical application.
A fundamental facet of Technology Enhanced Pedagogies is their propensity for offering customized learning experiences. As R.A. puts it, technology, even when replacing face-to-face interactions, fortified connections among learners and between educators and students: “If we aren’t at the university, then the professors brought the university to our homes. The provided images capture the professor’s intention of showing us how some devices work” (refer to Figure 14b).
Furthermore, these pedagogies furnish real-world learning experiences. M.B. emphasized the concept of “learning by doing,” elaborating how technological tools like simulations merge theoretical knowledge with practical application, thereby bridging the classroom with real-world scenarios and nurturing problem-solving prowess and comprehensive understanding (Figure 14c).
Discussion and conclusion
Our study, employing a photovoice method triangulated with narrative methods and focus groups, set out to illuminate the landscape of innovative pedagogies as seen and applied within an S&T university. Significantly, we spotlight how students conceptualize pedagogical innovation, revealing four major categories or clusters: Hero Pedagogies, Community and Solidarity Pedagogies, Sustainable Green Pedagogies, and Technology Enhanced Pedagogies. Herein, we unpack these findings and ponder their wider significance.
Hero Pedagogies resonated deeply with our participants. These pedagogies, which prioritize emotional engagement and storytelling, underline the pivotal role of human relationships in the learning journey. Echoing Moriña’s (2022) insights, effective teaching goes beyond mere strategies; it thrives on the bedrock of positive, mutual interactions between educators and learners. The essence of Hero pedagogies revolves around creating meaningful connections with content and understanding its wider societal ramifications. Some contemporary academic discourses even resonate with this idea, promoting the “pedagogy of care” (Motta & Bennett, 2018), the “pedagogy of emotion” (Walker & Palacios, 2016), and affective pedagogies (Ainsworth & Bell, 2020; Moriña, 2022).
Shifting our gaze to Community and Solidarity Pedagogies, we find similarities with Hero Pedagogies but with an expansive community focus. This mirrors UNESCO’s call for a paradigm shift in education (UNESCO, 2021), pushing students to venture beyond traditional learning materials and grapple with the broader societal and emotional impacts of their studies. From students’ experiences, applying Community and Solidarity Pedagogies is more than just absorbing knowledge; it leads to collaboratively weaving it within the community fabric (Aramburuzabala Higuera et al., 2019; Chounta et al., 2017; Kukulska-Hulme et al., 2023).
Sustainable Green Pedagogies also emerged as a standout theme, emphasizing the dire need for embedding ecological awareness in our teaching models. These pedagogies champion green learning, or as some prefer to term it, “learning for sustainability” or “learning for the green transition” (Elliott et al., 2020). Our data revealed a student preference for experiential learning that offers a panoramic view of environmental themes, from ecosystems to biodiversity. These pedagogies mold students into environmentally conscious individuals, primed to safeguard our shared planetary home. Consistent with other studies (Macías Gomez-Estern et al., 2021; Mak et al., 2017), this hands-on approach propels learners into immersive experiences, leading to a transformative learning journey.
Lastly, the realm of Technology Enhanced Pedagogies, also coined as “digital pedagogies” (Santoveña-Casal & López, 2023), showcases the synergy of modern technology with education, aiming to rejuvenate and amplify the learning experience (Kamp, 2020). From tangible tools like drones to virtual collaborative platforms, technology has unequivocally enriched both hands-on and collective learning endeavors (Prestridge & Cox, 2023), leading to improved attitudes about learning (Trust et al., 2022). Our data suggests that students not only embrace the heightened engagement these innovations provide but also treasure the connections they forge—bridging gaps between theoretical constructs and real-world applications, and, crucially, amongst individuals (Burke, 2015; Santoveña-Casal & López, 2023).
What is particularly notable is not merely the presence of these individual pedagogies but their synergistic interplay and their potential of orchestrating multi-actor innovation ecosystems (Bedford et al., 2018; Reichert, 2019; Thomas et al., 2021). For instance, the essence of Sustainable Green Pedagogies, while rooted in environmental consciousness, can often be augmented using Technology Enhanced Pedagogies, like simulations. Similarly, Hero Pedagogies, with their emphasis on human stories, can often intersect with Community Pedagogies, weaving a fabric that is rich, diverse, and holistic and forging combinations of pedagogies (Paniagua & Istance, 2018).
While this research at an S&T university has surfaced vital insights into student-perceived innovative pedagogies, it acknowledges certain limitations shaped by its methodological and contextual parameters. Conducting the study within a single institution, despite our efforts to ensure a rich and diverse participant base, presents limitations regarding the broader resonance of our findings across varied academic landscapes.
Our methodological approach, grounded in photovoice, inherently emphasizes the subjective interpretations of participants, capturing their experiences through visuals and narratives. Although this method provides profound insights into the lived experiences of students, it also embeds a degree of selectivity and interpretation bias. In response, we have adopted a reflexive stance throughout the research process, as discussed in our “Researchers’ Description and Positionality” section. Our reflective practices, guided by established methodologies (Love et al., 2020; Moola et al., 2020), involved continuous dialogue among the research team and with participants. This engagement aimed to critically assess and navigate our biases and assumptions, ensuring that our findings are deeply rooted in the authentic experiences and perspectives of our participants. By incorporating focus group discussions for collective image interpretation, we endeavored to counterbalance the individual selectivity inherent in photovoice, thereby enriching our understanding and interpretation of the pedagogical landscapes we explored.
For future research, a broader group of participants from various universities and fields is recommended. Longitudinal studies, especially on Sustainable Green Pedagogies’ effects, would be beneficial. As technology evolves, so must our understanding of digital pedagogies, requiring a collaborative approach. Future research could explore more dynamic and immersive photovoice methodologies, such as video selfies (velfies), and leverage artificial intelligence for data analysis to enhance the depth and breadth of insights. Finally, considering pedagogy within diverse cultural contexts may offer nuanced insights.
In conclusion, our research illuminates the rich tapestry of innovative pedagogies within an S&T-focused academic milieu. Beyond simply revealing its many facets, our study underscores the urgent imperative for a dynamic pedagogical framework—a framework attuned to the rapid shifts in the educational terrain and tailored to the multifaceted needs of contemporary learners. As we stand on the precipice of an era marked by disruptive social, technological, and economic upheavals, there is an undeniable call to nurture students who not only thrive amidst change but are catalysts for transformation themselves. These are the game-changing innovators, those equipped to re-envision challenges and either adapt to or champion disruptive innovations. By encouraging transformative skills and sharing the benefits of academic knowledge, we aim to prepare the next generation to shape a promising future.
Footnotes
Data availability statement
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a grant from the National Program for Research of the National Association of Technical Universities—GNAC ARUT 2023.
