When industry meets academia
Authors: Antonczak Laurent , Neukam Marion , Bollinger Sophie 
Published: February 2022

This presentation focuses on a transdisciplinary approach to innovative and collaborative learning practices driven by technology. It highlights two salient elements associated with industry practices and processes in relation to learning and educational contexts: empowerment of individuals and communities of practice through technology, and a broader consideration of industrial approaches to the concept of learning and teaching enhanced within a digital environment.
More precisely, this presentation will feature some of the key theoretical frameworks used in three different settings of learning and teaching in France with regards to the life-long learning approach thanks to Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) (WEF, 2016). It will also discuss the positive effect of the Internet and its affordances (Southerton & Taylor, 2020) on reducing the differences between theoretical and applied knowledge via professional-focused communities (Danvers, 2003). Thus, it will briefly explain that spatial and cognitive learning proximities (Lave & Wenger 1991; Fruchter, 2001) can be reduced by virtue of technology (Anders, 2016; Antonczak, 2019; Glazewski & Hmelo-Silver, 2019) and that ‘computer-supported collaborative learning’ methods can facilitate social and shared problem-solving (Sawyer, 2005; Levallet & Chan, 2018; Presicce et al., 2020) without the ‘restriction of time and place’ (Cheng et al., 2019, 489). Additionally, it will point out some aspects of problem-solving through ‘emancipatory learning and social action’ (Merriam, 2001, 9) through the use of ‘actual’ content and ‘actionable feedback’ (Woods & Hennessy, 2019) enhanced by digital tools and tactics.
Next, it will focus on three case studies by concisely presenting key specifics for each of the courses, including the various digital tools used and followed by some quick interim reflections.
Then it will summarise the challenges and the barriers encountered across the different practices such as virtual delivery, the size of the students' groups and some connectivity considerations. It will be followed by the principal advantages and opportunities, like the professionalisation dimension through interactive and authentic learning enhanced by affordances. And it will conclude with some managerial recommendations as experiential and practical methods (knowledge codification) thanks to industry-based teaching supported by digital technologies.
The presentation will close with the overall conclusion in relation to digital technology and some of the key 21st-century career skills. In general, the findings will be of interest to academics, practitioners and policymakers. The added value of this transdisciplinary investigation is that it improves research on collaborative innovation and collective knowledge by creating a bridge between the fields of Education and Business.

Bibliography
Anders, A. (2016). Team communication platforms and emergent social collaboration practices. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(2), pp. 224-261.
Ananiadou, K. & M. Claro (2009). 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41, OECD Publishing.
Antonczak, L. (2019). Scaling-up collaborative practices through mobile technology. The 25th International Conference on Engineering/International Technology Management Conference (ICE/ITMC), June 17-19, Nice.
Askay, D. A. & Spivack, A. J. (2010). The multidimensional role of trust in enabling creativity within virtual communities of practice: A theoretical model integrating swift, knowledge-based, institution-based, and organizational trust. In 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, pp. 1-10.
Cairns, L. (2000). The process/outcome approach to becoming a capable organization. In Australian Capability Network Conference, Sydney, 1-14.
Cheng, E. W., Chu, S. K., & Ma, C. S. (2019). Students’ intentions to use PBWorks: a factor-based PLS-SEM approach. Information and Learning Sciences, 120(7/8), 489-504.
Cochrane, T., Antonczak, L., Guinibert, M., Mulrennan, D., Rive, V., & Withell, A. (2017). A framework for designing transformative mobile learning. In Mobile Learning in Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific Region ( 25-43). Springer, Singapore.
Danvers, J. (2003). Towards a radical pedagogy: Provisional notes on learning and teaching in art & design. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 22(1), 47-57.
Dewey, J. (1991). Logic: The theory of inquiry. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925–1953, Vol. 12 (1-5). Carbondale, IL: SIU Press. [Originally published in 1938]
Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1-16.
Fruchter, R. (2001). Dimensions of teamwork education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(4/5), 426-430.
Glazewski, K. D., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2019). Scaffolding and supporting the use of information for ambitious learning practices. Information and Learning Sciences, 120(1/2), 39-58.
Hase, S. & Kenyon, C. (2007). Heutagogy: A child of complexity theory. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 4(1), 111-119.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levallet, N., & Chan, Y. E. (2018). Role of Digital Capabilities in Unleashing the Power of Managerial Improvisation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 17(1), 1-21.
Lewin, K. (1947). Group decision and social change. Readings in Social Psychology, 3(1), 197-211.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2013). Systematic review of design-based research progress: Is a little knowledge a dangerous thing?. Educational Researcher, 42(2), 97-100.
Makri, S., Ravem, M., & McKay, D. (2017). After serendipity strikes: Creating value from encountered information. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 54(1), 279-288.
Mascheroni, G., & Vincent, J. (2016). Perpetual contact as a communicative affordance: Opportunities, constraints, and emotions. Mobile Media & Communication, 4(3), 310-326.
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 3-13.
Pont, B. (2013). Learning Standards, Teaching Standards and Standards for School Principals: A Comparative Study. Rapport no. EDU/WKP(2013)14. Centre of Study for Policies and Practices in Education (CEPPE). Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=EDU/WKP(2013)14&docLanguage=En (accessed December 31, 2020).
Presicce, C., Jain, R., Rodeghiero, C., Gabaree, L. E., & Rusk, N. (2020). WeScratch: an inclusive, playful and collaborative approach to creative learning online. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(7/8), 695-704.
Reeves, T. C. (2005). Design-based research in educational technology: Progress made, challenges remain. Educational Technology, 45(1), 48-52.
Southerton, C., & Taylor, E. (2020). Habitual disclosure: Routine, affordance, and the ethics of young peoples social media data surveillance. Social Media+ Society, 6(2), https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120915612