Beyond The Classroom – Exploring the Potential of Living Labs in Civil Engineering at The University of Wuppertal

Practice Paper Recommended citation: Baßfeld, L., & May, D. (2025). Beyond The Classroom – Exploring the Potential of Living Labs in Civil Engineering at The University of Wuppertal. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631760. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. BEYOND THE CLASSROOM – EXPLORING THE POTENTIAL OF LIVING LABS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WUPPERTAL Laura Baßfeld, M. Sc. a, 1 , Prof. Dr. Dominik May b, a University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany, 0009-0009-0284-7452 b University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany, 0000-0001-9860-1864 Conference Key Areas: Sustainability and society in engineering, Engineering skills, professional skills, and transversal skills Keywords: Living Lab, Sustainable Construction Education, Civil Engineering Education, Engineering Education Research ABSTRACT Civil engineers are co-creators of the physical environment, which is significantly affected by the consequences of climate change. However, the education of civil engineers faces the challenge of adapting the relevant competencies and teaching methods to prepare students for those challenges. This paper presents the use of a living lab, which represents a set of physically existing and fully operational buildings showcasing modern building approaches, for an authentic, hands-on, and realistic learning environment in civil engineering education. A team of instructors developed, delivered, and evaluated an innovative course for a future-oriented civil engineering education and made use of the living lab as a physical course environment. The results of the course evaluation indicate that the use of living labs enhances the understanding of sustainable construction methods and increases student motivation. 1 Laura Baßfeld [email protected] 1 INTRODUCTION Civil engineers play a key role in shaping the human-made environment. Therefore, they must take responsibility for designing sustainable living spaces in light of current challenges related to climate change (Girmscheid, 2007; Menge, 2023; Müller, 2010; Scheffler, 2019). The education of civil engineers faces the challenge of integrating the topic of sustainable development into curricula and, thus, preparing students for the ecological, social, and economic demands of the construction industry (Cech, 2014; Rulifson & Bielefeldt, 2019). Related key competencies include the ability to apply sustainable technologies, critically assess environmental impacts, and systematically integrate sustainability principles into planning and construction processes (Engineers4Europe, 2024). Hence, adapting teaching and learning methods to a competency-oriented instructional approach is essential (De Justo & Delgado, 2015). This is particularly relevant in civil engineering, which is strongly shaped by interdisciplinary and practice-oriented problem-solving approaches (Onyinye Nwulu, Emmanuella et al., 2023). It is widely recognized that traditional lectures are often insufficient to prepare students for the challenges of professional practice as described above (Leicht-Scholten et al., 2016). However, the use of living labs in higher education offers a highly effective way to foster the development of competencies in sustainable development. Living labs facilitate experiential learning, promote systems thinking as well as transformative action, and strengthen key competencies for sustainable development, as outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals and the concept of Education for Sustainable Development (Beecroft & Parodi, 2016; Kareborn & Stahlbrost, 2009). By directly linking theory and practice in real-world contexts, students are enabled to develop interdisciplinary solutions for complex societal challenges. This practice paper presents an instructional concept that integrates education for sustainable development with the Living Lab environment. The concept was evaluated in an elective module within the Civil Engineering program at the University of Wuppertal. The guiding research question for our work was as follows: How can living labs be integrated into civil engineering teaching, and how do students perceive them at the example of the University of Wuppertal? 2 CONTEXT AND PRACTICAL WORK 2.1 Literature Review Common forms of experiential learning in engineering education include case studies, labs, internships, capstone projects, and industry research. Other approaches, such as simulations, role-playing, arts-based learning, and on-campus employment, are also possible (O’Brien et al., 2021). In literature, Living Labs are discussed as both a realistic educational setting and as a method to foster instructional innovation by implementing open and user-centred development processes in real-world instructional environments through the direct involvement of stakeholders (Della Santa et al., 2024; Evans et al., 2015). Hence, Living Labs offer great potential for connecting research, teaching, and social responsibility. The use of Living Labs in education, particularly in the field of civil engineering, has been little explored to date (van den Heuvel et al., 2021) and empirical research is scattered (Van Der Wee et al., 2024). However, pilot projects education, for example in Canada (O’Brien et al., 2021) and the UK (Evans et al., 2015), demonstrate positive effects on practical learning experiences and the development of job-relevant competencies. 2.2 Context for the Presented Instructional Intervention A qualitative content analysis of the module handbook for the Bachelor's degree program in Civil Engineering at the University of Wuppertal shows that the topics related to sustainable development have not yet been comprehensively integrated into the modules. Based on prior experiences, the existing elective module "Modular Construction/Planning of Buildings" in the sixth semester (eight ECTS) of the Bachelor's program in Civil Engineering at the University of Wuppertal offered a unique opportunity to both use the Living Lab NRW as a learning environment and introducing topics like sustainability in civil engineering education. Therefore, the module was revised in terms of content and methodology and embedded in the environment of the Living Lab NRW. The course was introduced in the summer semester of 2024 with 17 participants (seven female, ten male). After briefly describing the Living Lab NRW, the newly designed course concept will be discussed in the following. The Living Lab NRW The Living Lab NRW (Fig. 1) currently offers a unique opportunity to utilize fully operational buildings from the international student competition, the Solar Decathlon 2022, for teaching and research purposes. Since its introduction, the Living Lab NRW has served as a platform for research and education in the fields of climateneutral and sustainable urban construction at the Faculty of Architecture and Civil Engineering at the University of Wuppertal (Fakultät für Architektur und Bauingenieurwesen der Bergischen Universität Wuppertal, o. J.) Figure 1Overview of the Living Lab NRW (Fakultät für Architektur und Bauingenieurwesen der Bergischen Universität Wuppertal, o. J), Copyright S.Steinprinz 2.3 Redesigned Course Concept using the Living Lab NRW Given the above-described context, we developed a new, innovative instructional concept for civil engineering students. Before the redesign, the module consisted of traditional lectures in university lecture halls, with only rudimentary interaction with students. Topics related to sustainable development were also not included. Our new approach made use of the Living Lab NRW as a unique and hands-on learning setting. The approach aimed to bring students into a physical environment where they could develop and apply competencies in real-world problem-solving, climate-neutral construction, and sustainable design in building construction. General instructional design considerations and guiding principles In line with the concept of Constructive Alignment, we first defined the intended learning outcome for the new course design and aligned the learning activities and assessment formats accordingly to ensure a coherent course design and targeted competency development (Biggs & Tang, 2010). The learning objectives definition considered the students’ specific prior knowledge according to the curriculum and the written module handbook. Explicit prior knowledge was assessed using an audience response system at the beginning of the course (Capone, 2022). This assessment made it possible to verify the formulated learning objectives and to tailor both the course content and the structure. Furthermore, general course feedback from prior students was considered. Learning Outcome The new version of "Modular Construction/Planning of Buildings" was deliberately designed to ensure that students not only acquire theoretical knowledge about sustainable construction methods but also apply and reflect on this knowledge in a practice-oriented environment. Specific course topics were selected to provide students with insights into all three dimensions of sustainability. The course topics included an introduction to sustainable development in construction, modular construction, ecological building and insulation materials, and user comfort/concepts. The main learning outcome for the course, hence, was to apply those topics to the Living Lab NRW buildings and describe the dimensions of sustainability accordingly. Furthermore, the course was supported by external lecturers with diverse professional and personal backgrounds, allowing students to gain not only a comprehensive understanding of the topics but also to benefit from interdisciplinary perspectives (Schijf et al., 2025). Learning Activities For the main course activity, students were presented with real-world problems, which covered the aforementioned subject areas and in context with the Living Lab NRW buildings. The students were required to analyse those real-world problems and develop their own solutions in teams of three to five students. Each student group was assigned one of the buildings as a demonstrator to be used for solving the given problem. More specifically, the instructional course design consisted of three different types of course sessions: Type 1 – Joint in-person sessions In these sessions, students were introduced to theoretical content through highly interactive lecturers. The focus was not solely on delivering content through traditional frontal lectures but rather on utilizing various interactive methods and the external lecturers’ expertise to enhance learning. Those in-person sessions happened in one of the Living Lab’s budlings. Type 2 – Self-study phases During self-study phases, students had the opportunity to work independently on their semester-long assignments and use the facilities of the Living Lab for their research and problem-solving processes. Type 3 – Examination sessions Two examination sessions in form of group presentations were conducted throughout the semester. For details on the examination, read the assessment section below. The course structure is illustrated in the following figure. Figure 2-course overview Additional formative feedback was used throughout the semester to support the students' learning progress and to address individual challenges (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). For example, the feedback given to students after their first assessment was intended to serve as guidance, helping them to reflect on their performance and adjust it in preparation for the next examination date (Dainton, 2018; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). Assessment As an assessment, the students were given the task of selling their demonstrator to an investor in a fictional competitive setting. This involved preparing two presentations, including handouts, based on various specified parameters. The group project was designed with two separate presentation sessions, allowing students to focus on specific aspects and refine their work based on feedback. The first session covered framework conditions and technical concepts, while the second presentation focused on user comfort and ecological building methods. This structured approach improved academic working methods, reflective skills, and a holistic understanding of sustainable construction. To enhance motivation, a competitive setting (Hamari et al., 2014) enabled students to apply their knowledge in a fictional competition and compare results with peers. Specific Engagement with the Living Lab By incorporating an exploratory learning setting in the form of an interactive discovery tour at the beginning of the semester, students were able to actively engage with the demonstrator buildings in the Living Lab NRW. Integrating the demonstrators throughout the entire semester provided students with the opportunity to not only understand the theory of sustainable construction concepts but also experience them firsthand in practice. An additional material library helped to understand and experience the materials used in the demonstrators. All lectures and presentations took place in the demonstrators' rooms, so that the students could absorb the environment during the learning phase. Furthermore, the groups used the demonstrators as group work rooms. This integrated approach was meant to foster a deeper understanding of the buildings’ physical appearance and feel, as students were able to independently recognize how materials, construction methods, and energy concepts interact with each other. 3 COURSE EVALUATION Feedback and course evaluation data was collected in various forms. At the end of the semester, students were asked via the audience response system Particify to evaluate their learning objectives achievement. The use of feedback through Particify at the end of the semester served to promote self-reflection, assess learning outcomes, enhance motivation, and provide a data-driven basis for the continuous improvement of the course design. Additionally, the instructional team applied a mixed-method evaluation concept, in which the team first used a standardized, customized, quantitative survey with additional open questions. Based on the survey responses, the team performed a focus group interview with a selected group of students. The students were able to nominate themselves for that interview. 3.1 Survey-based course evaluation As part of the standardized course evaluation conducted via the EvaSys software, the dimensions "Structure and Didactics," "Stimulation and Motivation," "Interaction and Support," and "Overall Impression" were assessed. A questionnaire using a Likert-scale was employed for this purpose (1: strongly agree, 5: strongly disagree). In addition to the quantitative assessment, qualitative feedback was gathered through open-ended questions to gain deeper insights into students' perceptions. The responses indicate several key themes that highlight both strengths and areas for improvement. A total of 13 (five female, 8 male) out of 17 course participants took part in the survey. The global evaluation indicator resulted in a positive overall rating (M = 1.3, SD = 0.5), reflecting the course’s strong reception among students. The specific dimensions assessed were Structure and Didactics (M = 1.3, SD = 0.5), Stimulation and Motivation (M = 1.2, SD = 0.3), and Interaction and Support (M = 1.2, SD = 0.3). Even though these numbers indicate overall satisfaction with the course, we acknowledge that the number of responses was very limited, which restricts the generalizability of the findings. However, the analysis of the open-ended responses helped to gain more specific insights into which aspects of the individual dimensions were particularly relevant for the evaluation. The qualitative feedback highlights key strengths and areas for improvement in the course. Students particularly valued the interactive and practical teaching approach, emphasizing the benefits of hands-on experience in the Living Lab, small group engagement, and the integration of digital tools like Miroboard. The involvement of guest lecturers and real-world case studies was also seen as highly beneficial in providing interdisciplinary insights. Motivation was driven by the application-oriented assignments, the opportunity to work with real building prototypes, and the interactive teaching methods, including discussions and quizzes. Areas for improvement included more structured scheduling, refinements in the assessment format (a role-playing exercise), and potential adjustments to session timing to improve logistics. Some students also suggested renaming the module to better reflect its updated content. Still, survey results from only 13 students don’t warrant a reliable and generalizable course evaluation. Consequently, the qualitative insights should be interpreted as indicative rather than representative of the overall student cohort. Hence, focus group interviews were conducted and helped us to gain a better understanding of the students’ perspective. 3.2 Focus Group Interview In addition to the standardized survey, a focus group interview was conducted after the final presentation to gain qualitative insights into students’ learning experiences. The interview focused on key themes such as learning in the Living Lab, interactivity and motivation, sustainability in the curriculum, and the assessment format. The qualitative statements provide additional context to the quantitative survey results, highlighting both strengths and areas for potential improvement and perceptions. This method was chosen as it reflects the interactive nature of the course and facilitates the exchange of experiences and perspectives among students. Furthermore, the interview complemented the course evaluation by providing deeper insights into the reasoning behind students’ assessments and capturing subjective perceptions of course structure, didactics, and motivation. A semi-structured interview guide was developed based on the results of the standardized survey. All course participants were invited to voluntarily take part in the interview. In total seven students (three female, four male) volunteered to participate. Participants received a privacy statement beforehand, which was presented and signed. The duration of the interview recording was 49 minutes. The transcription followed the Dresing & Pehl (Dresing & Pehl, 2018) guidelines. The content analysis was conducted using a qualitative content analysis approach by systematically coding relevant statements. Particular attention was given to statements that linked to the quantitative survey results. A deductive-inductive approach was applied: predefined categories from the quantitative evaluation (e.g., interactivity, sustainability, assessment format) served as an analytical framework, while additional themes emerging from the responses were also incorporated. A potential limitation of the interview is that the course instructor was involved in the moderation, which may have led to social desirability bias among participants. Research suggests that the presence of instructors in evaluation contexts can cause students to unconsciously adjust their responses to align with perceived expectations or withhold critical feedback (Patton, 2014). To mitigate this risk, the interview was additionally co-moderated by an independent person to ensure a more neutral discussion environment. Following focus areas could be identified and coded in the interview transcript: Theoretical knowledge vs. practical application Students described the engineering curriculum as mainly theoretical, with limited practical application, making the hands-on approach of this module particularly valuable. The integration of the Living Lab was perceived as more engaging and interactive than traditional lecture formats that the students have learned about during their study. The direct interaction with the buildings contributed to a deeper understanding, as one student remarked: “This practical relevance is there somehow because we engaged with the competition again, and since the houses are still there, we could walk through them and experience everything live instead of just looking at some slides or something.” (L. 130). The learning experience was also seen as more dynamic, with another participant stating: "The three-hour sessions didn’t feel as long as in other modules." (L. 137). Interactive teaching method Students particularly appreciated the interactive teaching methods, as they encouraged problem-solving and self-directed learning. This was reflected in their engagement with guided discussions and group work: “We were asked a lot of questions and had to develop answers ourselves.” (L. 142). Additionally, the selfstudy phases allowed students to reflect on and internalize key aspects of sustainable construction: “During the self-study phases, we realized that details such as accessibility only became apparent through direct use.” (L. 148). Living Lab NRW as a hands-on course environment When comparing the Living Lab experience to conventional excursions, students highlighted the advantage of continuous access to the learning environment. Unlike single-day excursions, which often result in information overload, the Living Lab allowed for progressive and deeper engagement: “In an excursion, you receive an overwhelming amount of input in one day and forget a lot quickly.” (L. 291). However, students also noted that sustainability remains underrepresented in the broader curriculum, despite its increasing relevance in professional practice. When asked how much of their studies had so far covered the topic of sustainable development, one participant responded with 2% (L. 428), and one participant answered with “very little” (L. 430). The role-play scenario, where students had to present their projects as if selling them to investors, was also highlighted as an effective learning tool: “I think the assessment format we had for this module was really good because it required us to actively engage with the building. Especially in this scenario, where we had to sell it, we had to analyze the project much more intensively. When I present something to someone else, I have to truly understand it myself.” (L 760). Despite the overall positive feedback, students suggested minor improvements. Infrastructure-related aspects were frequently mentioned, including the need for better furnishings for note-taking and more reliable internet access to support digital tools. 4 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The implemented new course design, through the integration of the Living Lab NRW, represents an innovative teaching concept that incorporates practice-oriented and interdisciplinary approaches. Topics such as modular construction, ecological building materials, and user comfort were not only taught with a strong theoretical foundation but also conveyed through interactive and competency-based methods that actively engaged students with the Living Lab NRW buildings. The evaluation results indicate that interactive, practice-based learning environments, such as the Living Lab NRW, can enhance student engagement and understanding by bridging the gap between theory and practice. Students valued the hands-on experience and found it more effective than traditional lecture-based teaching. However, course participants highlighted the limited integration of sustainability in the broader curriculum, emphasizing the need for a stronger focus on this topic. This study was an explorative study at the University at Wuppertal and its specific context. The following limitations have to be considered: The sample size for the course valuation was very small and cannot be considered representative of the overall student population in the program at the University of Wuppertal.