344
J. Kleinen and L. Kurz
Furthermore, 85% of the participants completely agreed that they could actively
participate, and 15% answered with a three. 92% completely agreed that their
previous knowledge sufficed to actively participate and also that the requirements of
the format were achievable for them, while the remaining 8% scored it a two. This
shows that the instructions were clearly understandable and followable, as well as
that the format was active instead of passive. Participants also stated that the format
was more fun than other teaching methods (92% completely agree) and they felt
that the majority of participants were engaged in the work (46% for each—one and
two—; 8% chose three).
In contrast to this, only 54% of the respondents agreed completely that the subject
of the format interested them, with 31% following at a two and 15% at a three. Their
answers regarding sustainability-related aspects were also mixed: The participants
also positioned themselves between a one and three with regard to the question “The
format sensitizes one for the subject of sustainability”. 46% completely agreed that
the format sensitizes you for the subject. “Through the format, I gained new insights
into the topic of sustainability” and “The format activates me to engage with the
topic of sustainability beyond this format” received replies ranging from one to four,
with no clear preference.
62% of the participants completely agreed that the format enables interdisciplinary cooperation (with 15% scoring a two and 23% a three). On top of this,
54% completely agreed that the format creates a frame within which one can talk
about societal challenges (with 38% scoring it a two and 8% a three). This is important, because sustainable challenges are interconnected and thus one needs to create
interdisciplinary and even shared technological and societal solutions for them.
Nevertheless, only 23% of the participants completely agreed that the methods
employed within the format would be fruitful for their (future) work. Still, the
majority of 62% scored it a two, and only 8% agreed with three. This might be
related to their rating of the question whether the format expanded their professional
skills, from which no clear picture emerges: Here, the responses ranged from a one
(8%) to a five (23%), two and four both received 15% and the majority of 38% chose
an agreement of three out of six. The participants seem to be unsure whether using
CSFP to create visions for the sustainable factory of the future would be relevant
for their future work and skillset. Verbally, the students expressed that they did not
believe that the topic of sustainability was relevant for their studies currently but, in
their opinion, definitely should be. Therefore, there is a discrepancy between the skills
they think they need in order to be successful at university or to find employment,
and the skills they think they need in the world of the future, where sustainability
will be highly important.
To evaluate the collaborative effect of the method, the students were asked how
much they agree with three statements: Whether the format enables making new
contacts, whether the group grows together during the format and whether a feeling
of community develops during the format. All participants either completely agreed
or scored their agreement a two. Naturally, successful collaboration forges groups
together. Still, not every in-class work group enjoys their cooperation. This decidedly
J. Kleinen and L. Kurz
Furthermore, 85% of the participants completely agreed that they could actively
participate, and 15% answered with a three. 92% completely agreed that their
previous knowledge sufficed to actively participate and also that the requirements of
the format were achievable for them, while the remaining 8% scored it a two. This
shows that the instructions were clearly understandable and followable, as well as
that the format was active instead of passive. Participants also stated that the format
was more fun than other teaching methods (92% completely agree) and they felt
that the majority of participants were engaged in the work (46% for each—one and
two—; 8% chose three).
In contrast to this, only 54% of the respondents agreed completely that the subject
of the format interested them, with 31% following at a two and 15% at a three. Their
answers regarding sustainability-related aspects were also mixed: The participants
also positioned themselves between a one and three with regard to the question “The
format sensitizes one for the subject of sustainability”. 46% completely agreed that
the format sensitizes you for the subject. “Through the format, I gained new insights
into the topic of sustainability” and “The format activates me to engage with the
topic of sustainability beyond this format” received replies ranging from one to four,
with no clear preference.
62% of the participants completely agreed that the format enables interdisciplinary cooperation (with 15% scoring a two and 23% a three). On top of this,
54% completely agreed that the format creates a frame within which one can talk
about societal challenges (with 38% scoring it a two and 8% a three). This is important, because sustainable challenges are interconnected and thus one needs to create
interdisciplinary and even shared technological and societal solutions for them.
Nevertheless, only 23% of the participants completely agreed that the methods
employed within the format would be fruitful for their (future) work. Still, the
majority of 62% scored it a two, and only 8% agreed with three. This might be
related to their rating of the question whether the format expanded their professional
skills, from which no clear picture emerges: Here, the responses ranged from a one
(8%) to a five (23%), two and four both received 15% and the majority of 38% chose
an agreement of three out of six. The participants seem to be unsure whether using
CSFP to create visions for the sustainable factory of the future would be relevant
for their future work and skillset. Verbally, the students expressed that they did not
believe that the topic of sustainability was relevant for their studies currently but, in
their opinion, definitely should be. Therefore, there is a discrepancy between the skills
they think they need in order to be successful at university or to find employment,
and the skills they think they need in the world of the future, where sustainability
will be highly important.
To evaluate the collaborative effect of the method, the students were asked how
much they agree with three statements: Whether the format enables making new
contacts, whether the group grows together during the format and whether a feeling
of community develops during the format. All participants either completely agreed
or scored their agreement a two. Naturally, successful collaboration forges groups
together. Still, not every in-class work group enjoys their cooperation. This decidedly