Exploring New Technology’s Meaning for a Sustainable Future …
343
The last part of the workshop consisted of four extra tasks:
• Sketching blueprints of the sustainable factory technology aimed at encouraging
the participants to think about how the futuristic technology might actually work.
It predominantly resulted in sketches of the core process of the factory, not the
technology itself. Every sketch contained labels providing explanations but the
design and workings of the technological components were not detailed further,
only their function.
• Writing diary entries explored what would result from changing the participants’
perspective from third person to first person, i.e. stepping into the shoes of affected
people and seeing the science-fiction world through their eyes. The outcomes
included:
– Describing the main plot challenge (before and after its resolution) through the
eyes of the affected (54%)
– A previously undiscussed solution for the main challenge (8%)
– A technology-focused production challenge connected to the main plot that
was not mentioned previously (8%)
– New social aspects resulting from the sustainable technology not mentioned
before (8%)
– Exploring a side story (23%)
– 62% contained expressions of hopes and feelings.
• Developing a time-line for the realization of their sustainable factories of the future
was aimed at getting the students to think about how to make their future world
possible. Overall, the participants stayed on a high level, yet all cases included
one extra step with details not included previously.
• Discussing how to fix the main problem inherent in the imagined sustainable
factories did not yield new insights and was perceived as repetitive.
3.3 Evaluation: Results of the Survey
To assess how the participants received the offering, a survey was conducted at the end
of the workshop. The students rated whether they agreed with a range of statements
on a six-point Likert-type scale in which the one was “applies completely” and
6 “absolutely does not apply”. This survey analysis is divided in four parts: The
first, regarding its aspects as a university teaching method; the second, its perception
regarding sustainability-related aspects; the third, its effects as a collaborative method
and, finally, its effects as an innovation method.
The CSFP offering was well received as a teaching method: When asked whether
they would recommend the format, 62% scored it a one (agrees completely) and
the rest either a two (23%) or three (15%). 65% agreed completely that they would
participate again (with a different selection of topics, if necessary), with the rest
divided between a two (31%) and a three (15%).
343
The last part of the workshop consisted of four extra tasks:
• Sketching blueprints of the sustainable factory technology aimed at encouraging
the participants to think about how the futuristic technology might actually work.
It predominantly resulted in sketches of the core process of the factory, not the
technology itself. Every sketch contained labels providing explanations but the
design and workings of the technological components were not detailed further,
only their function.
• Writing diary entries explored what would result from changing the participants’
perspective from third person to first person, i.e. stepping into the shoes of affected
people and seeing the science-fiction world through their eyes. The outcomes
included:
– Describing the main plot challenge (before and after its resolution) through the
eyes of the affected (54%)
– A previously undiscussed solution for the main challenge (8%)
– A technology-focused production challenge connected to the main plot that
was not mentioned previously (8%)
– New social aspects resulting from the sustainable technology not mentioned
before (8%)
– Exploring a side story (23%)
– 62% contained expressions of hopes and feelings.
• Developing a time-line for the realization of their sustainable factories of the future
was aimed at getting the students to think about how to make their future world
possible. Overall, the participants stayed on a high level, yet all cases included
one extra step with details not included previously.
• Discussing how to fix the main problem inherent in the imagined sustainable
factories did not yield new insights and was perceived as repetitive.
3.3 Evaluation: Results of the Survey
To assess how the participants received the offering, a survey was conducted at the end
of the workshop. The students rated whether they agreed with a range of statements
on a six-point Likert-type scale in which the one was “applies completely” and
6 “absolutely does not apply”. This survey analysis is divided in four parts: The
first, regarding its aspects as a university teaching method; the second, its perception
regarding sustainability-related aspects; the third, its effects as a collaborative method
and, finally, its effects as an innovation method.
The CSFP offering was well received as a teaching method: When asked whether
they would recommend the format, 62% scored it a one (agrees completely) and
the rest either a two (23%) or three (15%). 65% agreed completely that they would
participate again (with a different selection of topics, if necessary), with the rest
divided between a two (31%) and a three (15%).