Context and purposes

This article is concerned with a learning framework for transnational education introduced under EUTOPIA, a European University Alliance created under the European University initiative (EUI) launched in 2018 by the European Commission. The EUI builds on a vision expressed by Emmanuel Macron in 2017 (President of France at that time) and Mariya Gabriel (European Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture, Education and Youth from 2019–2023), advocating a deeper form of European collaboration. The pilot responds to the vision for the future of European Education and a concrete target of delivering a stronger European Education Area by 2025. Building on the legacy of the Bologna Process that introduced a vision for a common European Higher Education Area (EHEA), the conceptualisation of the European University of the future draws heavily on the aspiration for openness and flexibility, stressing the importance of mobility as an integral part of the student journey. The Secretary General of the European University Association, Amanda Crowfoot (2020), writes:

Universities in the coming decade should be without walls, open to all who seek the lights of learning, as well as those who want to partner with universities to create knowledge. Digitalisation has already broken-down physical walls; students can attend classes from afar either towards a degree or to add to their skills [emphasis added].

We will reflect on this quote through the educational model we are proposing, and piloting, in the EUTOPIA Alliance.¹ Specifically, this article discusses the theoretical underpinning, core principles and methodology of the Connected Learning Communities (CLC) framework we designed. CLCs draw on connected pedagogies and seek to provide innovation building on existing practice by enhancing and expanding current pedagogical offerings. We argue that we are in the third wave of Connected Learning which builds on the ideals of student agency and transformative learning, which is well aligned with the emphasis on innovation in current education policy agendas in general, and the EUI in particular.² The position we take is that innovation and change can be better achieved bottom-up when there is a framework that allows this to scale up (Serdyukov 2017). Students and staff engage with change-inducing interventions if/when the intended benefits are pragmatically and convincingly articulated and accepted. Bottom-up change, then, reaches the ‘mainstream’, ‘core’ provision which shifts for the benefit of both students and other stakeholders, academic as well as extra-academic. We further unpack those claims in relation to the CLC-framework we are proposing.

The article is structured in five parts. We discuss the core concepts that our work draws upon, Connected Learning and CLCs, before turning to the framework and model we are piloting. We provide an overview of the first six EUTOPIA CLCs and present an analysis of barriers and enablers observed during the first months of their existence. We close the article with policy recommendations and priorities for future research.

From connectivity to connectedness: Three waves of Connected Learning

Connectivity is not new in higher education, although not necessarily branded as a theory or separate approach. From the many theories of learning and student engagement, Student Involvement Theory (Astin 1999) already associated student-to-student connectivity with perception of belonging, personal and professional growth. More generally, from the 1990s firm interest has been placed in the literature on enhancing the learner's social and environmental circumstances and enabling them to engage with parties having similar interests in in/formal communities. This is in line with calls for student-centredness in higher education and the emphasis on active learning which promotes student empowerment and choice. ‘When a person is actively involved with another person, object, group, or environment (…) that involvement promotes a sense of comfort, wellbeing, and anxiety-reduction’ (Hagerty et al. 1993: 293). The importance of engaging the learner and their individual interests has been extensively researched and demonstrated (Hidi and Renninger 2006). Research has shown the benefits of creating learning interactions within the classroom between learners and their peers (Dwyer et al. 2004), and this active engagement is associated with motivation, wellbeing, retention and performance (e.g., Bonwell and Eison 1991).

The term ‘Connected Learning’ started appearing more systematically from the late 1990s (MacLeod et al. 2019) and commonly refers to learning models that enable the learner to ‘connect’ their interests to their curricular experiences (e.g., Jorgenson et al. 2018; Lee and Robbins 1995). The locus of the transition is the individual learner who is enabled to make connections between the formal and informal curricula. In the second wave, and capitalising on the growth in digital technologies, network-oriented models move the thinking from the individual to the network which becomes the locus of connections (Downes 2005; Siemens 2005). More dynamic approaches to learning seek to enable group connectivity through connecting groups of students at course or programme level and in curricular and co-curricular activities and jointly offered schemes between different institutions or academic/non-academic partners (Tinto 2003; Agramont et al. 2019). The benefits of online and blended learning environments for connecting students to one another and opening up networks to one another are evident; one of the main benefits of technology is the ability to bring together learners across geographical contexts. This is reflected in academic work aiming to enhance Connected Learning and collaboration between learners and instructors across institutions and countries (Bridgstock and Tippett 2019).

In the third wave, from mid-2000 onwards, models expand further on this line of thinking and emphasise the relevance and importance of student agency as and in communities of practice (Brew 2006). The goal of learning interventions is to enable better alignment between curricula and co/extra-curricular study in the home institution and beyond, allowing peer/student partnerships and connections across contexts. Particularly in the case of global learning, individual agency, growth and maturity are the expected benefits of these models, while tools for measurement have also started appearing for capturing breadth and depth of connectedness. Karen Dwyer and colleagues (2004), as an example, developed the Connected Classroom Climate Inventory (CCCI), a widely used instrument that assesses aspects of environment and student connectedness, such as sense of belonging, safety and respect (MacLeod et al. 2019). More recently, Social Network Analysis approaches were introduced for monitoring and analysing teaching/learning interactions (see for example Saqr et al. 2020). International learning programmes, however, only concern a relatively small percentage of an institution's population who can participate. Hence, the persistent challenge is ways to provide learning opportunities in scalable format for all students going beyond reliance on one modality such as physical travel.

Models that self-identify as ‘Connected Learning’ approaches (see e.g., Ito et al. 2013, 2020) converge in capitalising on the learner interests while enhancing existing networks and opportunities beyond the taught curriculum. The term has been used to refer to connecting undergraduate students to researchers in and through their curriculum (e.g., Fung 2017). The aim is to increase, primarily undergraduate, student participation in the research life of an institution, enhancing qualification, employment prospects and civic responsibility through moving beyond the traditional focus on cognitive learning outcomes to a more holistic educational approach. On similar principles, Bridgstock and Tippett emphasise ‘socially networked, connected activities such as mentoring, collaborative problem-solving, crowdsourcing and networked learning, in partnership with industry and community where relevant’ (2019: 2; see also OECD 2019).

In short, scholarship on this topic has moved from conceptualising connectivity in fairly linear terms (student-to-student; network-to-network) to a more dynamic, matrix-like form of engagement. In our work, we aspire to balance the agency of the learner with the development of a structure that will empower and enable students to experience connectedness at multiple levels during their learning journey: (a) in individual learning units (modules or courses) that make the students’ formal curriculum and contribute to degree classification; (b) in exchange (short/long) and year abroad schemes (e.g., Erasmus mobility schemes launched by the European Commission in 1987 as part of the larger Erasmus+ programme); (c) in the often called ‘informal curriculum’, schemes and programmes organised in the ‘co-curricular space’, referring to learning activities and experiences that complement and enrich the formal curriculum, offering students opportunities for personal and skill development beyond the classroom. We use the term ‘connectedness’ to capture the dynamic nature of the student experiences. This can be conceptualised as a process where the individual and the group (students, academics and partners) establish connections at multiple levels through both curricular and co-curricular experiences. Some of these connections (will) stabilise while others remain liminal in a learning community ecosystem. We reflect further on the process in this article.

Adopting a Learning Communities approach

The Learning Community (LC) concept we are building upon, draws on social learning theory and emphasises active and collaborative learning. Barbara Leigh Smith and colleagues (2004) theorised five core principles of LCs, which are relevant to our discussion and model: community, diversity, integration, active learning and reflection/assessment. The approach is in line with a constructionist approach which places emphasis on engagement and the lived experience of the individual learners, while at the same time emphasising the interdependence of the community members. LCs were translated into pedagogic interventions in the United States of America from the early 1980s, particularly targeting first-year students and aiming to build a strong sense of community through collaboration among students and staff (Otto et al. 2015). By the late 1990s and early 2000s a variety of definitions and models had been introduced and used by higher education institutions. Definitions of LCs converge on the concept of sharedness of interests and resource within one community. A succinct example: ‘an intentionally developed community that exists to promote and maximise the individual and shared learning of its members. There is ongoing interaction, interplay, and collaboration among the community's members as they strive for specified common learning goals’ (Lenning et al. 2013: 7).

LCs are often directly associated with the Communities of Practice (CoP) framework (Lave and Wenger 1991) which has been defined as ‘an aggregate of people who come together around mutual engagement in some common endeavour’ (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1992: 464). Etienne Wenger and colleagues (2002: 4–5) describe CoPs as follows:

Groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis (…) Over time, they develop a unique perspective on their topic as well as a body of common knowledge, practices, and approaches. They also develop personal relationships and established ways of interacting. They may even develop a common sense of identity. They become a community of practice.

Etienne Wenger (1998) argued that CoPs are a unique combination of three fundamental elements: (i) a domain of knowledge that creates a common ground and sense of common identity, (ii) a community of people who care about the domain and create the social fabric of learning, and (iii) a shared practice that the community develops to be effective in its domain.

Grounded in active and collaborative learning, LCs make students aware of different fields, disciplines and ways of knowing and how to participate in them (Matthews et al. 2012). Already in the early 1990s Lave and Wenger (1991) addressed the benefits of transformative participation. More recently scholarship has continued to emphasise the benefits of common learning goals that are intentionally developed and maximise the process of learning (Lenning et al. 2013). An emphasis on practice (Angouri 2018) is directly aligned with the approach we are advocating which treats learning as ways of doing and involves empowering learners to take ownership of their learning experience and their intellectual and personal development. Because every member is responsible for identifying shared problems, seeking solutions, and adapting to the changes created by solving the problem, each individual should feel rewarded by the successes or distressed by the concerns of the community.

LCs have been used to denote entities that differ significantly in terms of size, type and structure (see Inkelas and Soldner 2012 for a typology). Scholars use the term both narrowly and as a rather flexible construct. LCs are often discussed in terms of micro/meso/macro levels (Bronfenbrenner 1993; Jessup-Anger 2015), referring to a group of students in a (bounded) activity or in a shared category such as a class, a course or programme, or a whole university. The flexibility of the micro-macro division is useful in describing the multiple layers of connectivity and the relationship between them. Conversely, the polyphony in the definition can add in lack of analytical clarity that is needed for LC models to grow. We come back to this point later in our modelling. In terms of size, LCs can vary from cohorts of students who are enrolled together in two or more linked courses in a single semester, or even a subgroup of learners from a larger cohort who work together (Davies et al. 2005). Regarding their structure, LCs can incorporate a residential component into their design, which varies from thematic residence halls to team-taught academic programmes. In the latter, LC members live together; these are known as living-learning communities or residential LCs. In the former students form a community through mutual engagement in common activities which do not, necessarily, involve a physical component. In recent years, LCs have expanded from face-to-face to online/virtual LCs, while the development of professional learning communities with a focus on sharing practices by professionals is also increasing in higher education institutions (Meletiadou 2023; O'Toole 2019).

Less frequently, LCs can take the form of inter-university schemes connecting students and staff from more than one institution. This is where our approach aims to contribute to the sector and expand current models of good practice. Our transformative pedagogy seeks to enable students, staff and societal partners to connect in blended and face-to-face spaces as we discuss below. We take curricular offering as the starting point of building a matrix of activities that function as pathways to connectedness. Specifically, trans-institutional and transnational teams of staff, students and extra-academic partners come together, through existing curriculum units and form dynamic and flexible Connected LCs (CLCs). The communities co-create course material and develop learning and teaching approaches that are innovative and address real-world challenges. They enable a different learning experience for the students as well as for staff, in a participatory and co-created learning journey. Overall, LCs are considered to enhance students’ motivation, engagement and perspectives on diversity, in addition to learning (Watkins 2005), and this is also confirmed in our work as we will later show.

In the evolution of LCs, an important step has been the recent shift from extra-curricular to co-curricular approaches (Suskie 2015) and an emphasis on integrated and co-created learning in trans-institutional learning portfolios. Although the emphasis and weight between extra- and co- is not always clear in the literature, we use the latter to refer to learning activities that complement the formal curriculum and enable the students to work with peers across programmes and levels and transcend national, disciplinary and linguistic boundaries (see Fung 2017). Current LC programmes are often integrated with service-learning and civic-engagement initiatives (e.g., MacGregor 2003) and use the established structures, such as study-abroad, for targeting learning experiences which have a transformational nature (Matthews et al. 2012). Core practices of LCs include active pedagogies such as active engagement, collaborative learning, integrative learning and reflection on learning, and promote involvement in complementary academic and social activities that extend beyond the classroom (Zhao et al. 2004). Common activities of LCs include, among others, seminars, retreats, professional development activities, community and team-building events, research projects, conferences, partnerships, portfolios, out-of-class activities (e.g., field trips), and showcases.

One challenge for LCs is to address the connotations that come with the ‘community’ concept. Communities typically denote a set of people with shared characteristics. The term ‘community’ has been used to cluster large demographically based categories (e.g., women) as well as much narrower ones (e.g., the students in a class). The concept carries connotations of cohesion (members having something in common), homogeneity (they will behave in similar ways) and belonging (we are similar so we ‘belong’ together). These, however, are problematic assumptions. Communities are not homogeneous and static entities; they are made up from diverse and individually different people. They can become inclusive or exclusive and are defined by participation and membership (Angouri 2018). Our vision is for our LCs to provide a safe space where all involved can have meaningful interactions beyond their immediate comfort zone and be empowered to try new ways of learning. This, however, does not suggest that community spaces are equal spaces. The process of working together on issues of common concern can give the participants drive and motivation to engage on an ongoing basis, but this needs careful scaffolding and deployment of resources to make opportunity available to all. It also does not mean that all working teams will develop into functioning communities. Some communities may not provide the value added necessary for the participants to continue engaging, or the top-level institutional support may not be enough for a transition from a start-up stage to a fully developed LC. This process is captured in the three-levelled developmental model we introduce in the following section.

Connectedness and the EUTOPIA model

The EUTOPIA CLCs have been formed around a selection of existing learning units. These are credit-bearing units (referred to as courses or modules depending on institutional nomenclature) in the Bachelor (BA), Master (MA) or PhD cycle of the Alliance universities, which are selected according to the following criteria: (i) thematic priorities – they cover interdisciplinary topics that are high on the institutional agenda, both educationally and research-wise; (ii) applied orientation – they involve a range of stakeholders enabling the students to work in teams, experience the practical application of theory and develop a research driven approach for problem solving; (iii) pedagogic innovation – they draw on active learning and address real world issues; (iv) multimodal – they adapt to the diverse needs of a range of students by using blended teaching techniques.

The units selected draw on active learning, many take a Community-Based Learning (CBL) approach, involving a range of partners beyond the academy (private, public and third sector). They function as the nodes for connecting existing curricula through students, staff and extra-academic partners. The units bring together, in a shared endeavour, core actors who benefit personally, professionally and academically from participating in CoPs. The portfolio of units we are piloting cuts across disciplines and topics and offers complementarity across institutions. Each unit was open to representation from all six partner institutions (in the initial phases of EUTOPIA) and schematically the evolution towards a fully-fledged network could be represented as in Figure 1.

View Full Size

A schematic representation of the development towards a maximally connected learning community including all six EUTOPIA partners (see footnote 1). Source: Author

Citation: Learning and Teaching 17, 2; 10.3167/latiss.2024.170202

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

Figure 1 shows the potential for the participating partners to be equally involved in bi/multilateral connectivity. This structural design is expected to provide a rich enough ecosystem and testbed for connectedness between the partners. Between November 2019 and January 2020, the first six EUTOPIA learning units (Europe in the World; Geography, Environment and Sustainability; Multilingualism and Diversity; Data and Critical Thinking; Technological Business Development; Introduction to Cognitive Science, referred to as CLC 1–6 in Table 3) were selected and used as a conduit for bringing together staff and students from participating institutions to share existing practice in areas that correspond to their shared expectations and aspirations for developing further. The process was documented based on (i) the type of leadership and student participation, (ii) degree to which the module was embedded in the curriculum, (iii) thematic scope and level of study, (iv) duration and intensity, (v) the level of student involvement and type of recognition of the developed practices.

An overview is provided in Table 1 (also discussed separately in Moriau and Angouri 2023), and the analysis of the dimensions emerged and fed into the visual representation of the educational model which underpins our CLC approach (Figure 2). The multi-level framework seeks to enable all involved to develop shared learning experiences in both curricular and co-curricular learning contexts by expanding and enriching existing practice.

View Full Size

A framework for Connectedness. Source: Author.

Citation: Learning and Teaching 17, 2; 10.3167/latiss.2024.170202

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The base level of the pyramid, perceived as the foundation level, is the existing curriculum context and academic praxis. We agree with Elliot Eisner's (1979) classic definition that the curriculum can be conceived of as a series of planned events that are intended to have learning consequences for one or more students. One could approach it as an organisational instrument, a format with which arrangements are made amongst teachers and students about the organisation of content, the choice of learning activities, evaluations, sequence, and certification. Joke Voogt and colleagues (2019) pointed that the curriculum is to be considered a complex phenomenon in which diverse interests, perspectives and realities interact, and sometimes interfere with one another. This approach resonates with theorisations of curriculum as an enactment of social practice (Priestley and Philippou 2018). In this view, curriculum is a process of interaction between teachers, students, materials and the classroom context, entailing the construction of personal meaning (Snyder et al.1992). Our CLC model is designed to facilitate and encourage this interaction. We connect credit-bearing learning experiences across complementary programmes by sharing teaching and learning resources, student-centred projects embedded in the curriculum and cross-institutional assessment.

In line with active learning, our design is that students are active participants in an international teaching and learning process. This involves targeted use of online collaboration platforms and (development of) tools allowing students to design and experience meaningful learning activities together with academic staff and extra-academic partners, both in the curricular and co-curricular space. This, foundation, level is made up of ‘micro’ activities that together create a sustainable portfolio that enables the involved parties to establish connectivity. Moving from there, the second level of the pyramid enables transitions beyond the home curriculum or even beyond academia. We consider this a ‘meso’ level. Integrating stakeholders outside the academy is particularly relevant for meeting the priorities of both the employability and citizenship agendas and building opportunities for students in the curricular and co-curricular learning space (Ehlers 2020). CBL assignments, student research activities, short-term/virtual/mixed mobility and international placements all contribute to the mindset and tangible activities that reflect these principles. Through those communities, students have the opportunity to work in groups across institutions in diverse learning formats thus enabling them to develop a global mindset and an ability to work with people from different backgrounds. Over time, those groups turn into communities through stabilising membership and scaling up the number of students who can participate (Moriau and Angouri 2023). The educational formats allow for a better understanding of society by providing students challenges in the form of authentic and collaborative teaching and learning, problem-solving assignments, internships, and joint research with staff or community groups.³

The third and final level of the pyramid is the trans-institutional level and policy context that allows a meta-level open curriculum and fluid mobility environment. This ‘macro’ level is designed to provide the necessary conditions for the ecosystem to grow. The reference to an open and fluid curriculum is not simply a catalogue of units available to students; it is the aspiration for each programme to include at least one unit that will be a gateway toward the EUTOPIA connected pedagogies.

Overall, the EUTOPIA educational model aims to offer a flexible and inclusive (‘open’) learning environment, delivering innovation at programme and curriculum levels, both intra- as well as cross-institutionally building on existing curriculum offering. Our concept of a CLC is based on a common learning journey where the participants co-create learning experiences through expanding and extending what is already in place. This also acknowledges the necessary time for a group of strangers to form a community. What is distinctive about what we propose is: (a) the integrative character and the process of crosslinking existing learning activities in curricular and co-curricular pedagogic practice, building innovation from within; (b) the transnational character of the communities which combine local learning with global perspectives; and (c) the simultaneous focus on the learner (a characteristic of connected pedagogies) and the group (which prioritises the common purpose of the communities). Our framework aims to form communities building on current practice and span all years/levels. This leads to a dynamic and evolving ecosystem compatible with institutional praxis and structure as our findings show.

Study aims, context and methods

This article reports on the outcomes of the initial six cross-campus EUTOPIA teams, establishing educational formats that are appropriate for their discipline following the principles above. We discuss the work of the cross-campus teams in detail separately (Moriau and Angouri 2023). For the needs of this article, we report on the first results of the analysis to illustrate the breadth and life cycle of the CLCs.

Our approach is structured in five steps outlined in Table 1: initiation of trans-institutional teams (step 1); scoping of goals and actions (step 2); designing learning activities and environments (step 3); piloting cross-campus activities (step 4); reflecting on outcomes and outputs (step 5). During the initiating phase, CLC participants were introduced to the EUTOPIA core values and key characteristics of the educational model. The scoping phase served to identify both overlap and complementarity in teaching and topical expertise, learning activities and assessment modes available within the CLCs. CLC participants (staff and students) ideated opportunities for creating cross-institutional synergies. A series of follow-up meetings was held to prepare, organise and assess cross-campus teaching and learning activities, referred to as Connected Teaching and Learning Initiatives (CTLIs) further on in this article (Tables 2 and 3). The meetings were, typically, planned with a six-week interval. They were conceived as a starting point and opportunity to gradually increase the level of connectedness amongst CLC participants and curricular elements at cross-institutional and cross-disciplinary levels. In order to get a richer conceptualisation of the nature of collaboration in cross-campus networks and the educational offerings and outputs emanating from them, the trajectories of the CLCs are monitored continuously by Author 1 and Author 2 as an ongoing practice.

This article reports on the first data collected during an eighteen-month timespan (Jan 2020–June 2021) using a mixed-method approach relying on direct observations, document analysis and ongoing reflective dialogues, inviting students and staff members involved in the CLC-activities to share and reflect on their experiences. Tables 2 and 3 provide an overview of the data that inform the educational model and our approach. We draw on the empirical evidence for descriptive purposes in this article, illustrating the breadth, multiple modalities, lifecycle, scalability potential and development of the EUTOPIA CLCs. Table 2 describes the composition and topical/disciplinary domains of the CLCs (1–6) and the formats and outputs of the CTLIs (1.1–6.1) covered in this study. Table 3 presents a more detailed overview of the CTLIs developed within the first six months of the pilot. All of them were coded (CTLI 1.1 = first cross-campus activity developed by CLC1 – CTLI 6.1 = first cross-campus activity developed by CLC6) and classified through an ongoing monitoring process by the authors. At the time of data analysis (July 2021–July 2022), 13 examples of CTLIs were being developed by the teams under study. Activities with similar properties are represented in the same column (e.g., CTLI 1.2 and CTLI 1.5).

Criteria used to categorise the activities covered in this study, draw on a teaching and learning co-creation typology proposed by Catherine Bovill (2019). This model considers who is initiating the initiative (staff and/or students), the main focus of the initiative (curriculum design, learning teaching and assessment, educational / subject-based research), the context of the initiative (intra- and/or extra-curricular), the number and type of students involved, the scale and duration of the initiative, the role of the students and the nature of student involvement and reward. The activities were categorised based on the degree of the embeddedness in the curriculum (core-option-not embedded) and the forms of participation involved (informed-involved-collaborating-leading), their leadership and level of student engagement. Data analysis also served to document drivers, barriers and enablers for working with connected pedagogies and communities at transnational level. We discuss the results further in the next section of the article.

Results and discussion

The breadth of connected pedagogies that emerged in the 18 months of collaborative curriculum making are indicative of the strength and robustness of the presented framework. They reflect diversity in terms of offerings as well as scalability potential of the cross-campus initiatives. The communities offered learning opportunities in an international, interdisciplinary and multilingual environment. CLC participants acknowledged shared opportunities for creating connectedness at three levels: that of the student, that of the participating staff members, and that of the institution. The reflective dialogues, student/staff feedback and observations indicate that, from the perspective of the student, CLCs provide access to intellectually challenging international and/or transdisciplinary learning opportunities; thereby enhancing personal development, employability and civic responsibility. From the perspective of academic staff, CLCs provide an opportunity to build a shared portfolio of teaching resources and networks; they help to overcome disciplinary bubbles and limitations and offer a means for continued professional development and partnership-building. At institutional level, CLCs provide the opportunity to: develop sustainable cross-institutional networks and partnerships; foster cross-interactions between education and research networks and activities; contribute to pedagogical innovation; enhance richness and attractiveness of the curriculum; and reinforce local anchoring and impact.

All six communities we discuss here established, within the period covered in this article, a rich portfolio of shared blended teaching resources/materials. This corresponds to a strong foundation level, the base line of the visual metaphor we use to summarise our framework (micro level, see Figure 2). Over the first year of the CLCs a clear move towards broadening and scaling up activities was also noted across all communities (meso level, see Figure 2). The relationship between the different levels of the pyramid is, evidently, not a linear one. The more relationships develop, the more the activities are enriched, become stronger and eventually get embedded in the formal curriculum. The CLC approach was shown to offer a creative environment, crosslinking students and staff members with diverse disciplinary, cultural and institutional backgrounds in ways that capitalised on existing good practice in the participating institutions (see Table 4).

The COVID-induced ‘digital turn’ served as a momentum for exploring the diversity of online teaching formats and tools. Allowing teaching staff to work in the co-curricular sphere for piloting curricular innovation, proved to be fruitful, for it offers a space, free from regulations and bureaucracy that all too often hinder processes of educational renewal or transformation in the formal curriculum. The tangible outcomes have been rewarding for all participants. Therefore, the initial phase of working towards cross-campus connectedness has, and is expected to continue, to result in sustained collaboration, the formation of agile learning networks and upscaling of some of the initiated cross-campus initiatives and activities.

Besides these positive outcomes, a number of challenges were also recorded in our monitoring process. We summarised those in Table 4. CLC participants expressed a need to be provided with institutional support, resources and recognition for their efforts. This is discussed in ongoing research (e.g., Angouri 2021). A considerable amount of pedagogical research shows that institutional support is a core condition for curriculum development (see for example Cohen and Spillane 1992; Huizinga et al. 2014). Barriers are related to the need to valorise engagement and provide mechanisms that encourage innovation, such as the ones provided by this model, but also more broadly by the European University pilot, in order to move experiments in CLCs from the periphery to mainstream. We consider it significant that all participants in the EUTOPIA teams, both students and staff, provide consistently positive feedback on the benefits of the proposition. Hence, the barriers do not, yet, seem to deter them from participation, and the enablers ‘carry the work forward’. However, challenges need to be picked up by educational national and international policy makers/regulators and institutional leaderships. Within six months, our working teams identified multiple nodes for connecting praxis and are transitioning to stable communities. The emphasis on blended modalities is particularly significant, as virtual mobility and online environments offer flexibility and better adaptation to individual expectations and needs but cannot replace the social aspects of learning. At the same time, being digitally versatile is a need and opportunity for a model synchronised with the disrupted environment of the twenty-first century. In summary, the model we are proposing is a pragmatic and financially sustainable way to deepen transnational learning collaboration. It has the potential to provide the necessary fluidity and stability to indeed make universities ‘without walls, open to all who seek the lights of learning, as well as those who want to partner with universities to create knowledge’ (Crowfoot 2020). We elaborate further in the final section of the article.

Conclusions

We have proposed a framework and model for achieving transnational collaboration and connectedness, which allows for diversifying mobility – including short-term/blended/virtual schemes – and moving beyond binaries such as intra/extra-curricular, intra/extra-academic, formal/informal learning, life-long/broad learning. Systemic changes bottom-up, compared to top-down, can bring long lasting changes to the community and hence are, a priori, more sustainable given that they benefit from buy-in of all involved. We share the view that a pragmatic and sustainable approach needs to be part of any design that aspires to be scalable, particularly in the current socioeconomic context characterised by demographic as well as geopolitical change, growing student numbers, increased interinstitutional competition, and financial pressures. Working with trusted partners to design flexible and versatile student opportunity can be the ‘low-hanging fruit’ to enrich pedagogic provision as long as the barriers identified earlier are addressed. As our experience has shown, CLCs offer perspectives for empowering and achieving student-centredness and enabling transformational learning in transnational education. Building on existing curriculum components makes it possible to develop a sustainable model and embed LCs in established programmes. As our data suggest, we observed the formation of communities through the interaction between their members in ways that match the common endeavour; they are dynamic and evolve over time. Students and staff benefited from membership and belonging to communities deeply embedded in their regional, national and international contexts. This needs to be supported to move from periphery to mainstream in order to become sustainable. Even when innovation comes with a clear value-added proposition, if it remains peripheral, it cannot achieve a transformative potential for all students and staff.

At the same time there are enablers for building on what already works well, and this is the core of the approach we are taking. The barriers we see are associated with the individual participant, the community level and the institutional context. As is evident, resource for incubating connectedness, rewarding the effort for students and staff and providing scaffolding for the innovations to become accessible to all are core prerequisites for universities to benefit from the framework. We are aiming to continue exploring these issues over the full three years of the pilot and we hope other research under the European University pilot will add different perspectives to the issue. The need for providing a business model for sustaining the diverse activities of the CLCs is an opportunity for the participating institutions as well as a possible weakness if it remains a peripheral addition to current practice. Mechanisms for adding resource through consolidating and embedding innovation in existing institutional structures constitute the basis of the model EUTOPIA is currently piloting.

To conclude, our aspiration is that through co-creating connected curricula, staff and students can realise their (academic) ambitions and will, at the same time, be involved in the shaping of their regional, national and European environments. Traditional educational formats have been designed for a majority of full-time degree-seeking students, trained in their first language, studying discipline-specific subjects, entering the university right after leaving the secondary school cycle, and being in position to benefit from such opportunities. Although the (need for) pedagogic designs that meet the multiple profiles of the student body have always been on the agenda of policy makers and of the sector, there has been an orientation towards a dominant ‘norm’ constituted by a particular type of programme and student. This is fast changing, and the growing levels of complexity invite a need for diversity of educational programming which current (regulatory) systems support with difficulty.

Our vision is for universities to open access to their programmes and adapt the curriculum to the needs of all students and the societal context that is dynamic and changing. Transnational connectedness offers an academically sound and inspiring space for all students to engage and meet their potential.

Universities have been building solid reputations for fostering state-of-the-art research activities and being partners for implementing far-reaching societal innovations. A university willing to position itself in the challenging new European Higher Education Area and beyond will need to identify the operational drivers for such a transformation. In a professional organisation such as a university, this can only be made sustainable with the help of the largely decentralised group of change agents, the academic staff and students as owners of the learning experience. That is why our approach advocates bottom-up innovation and progressive culture change from within.

Our work addresses the priorities of policy bodies and international organisations such as the European Commission for embedding internationalisation and enhancing collaboration between academia and society. CLCs offer an alternative approach to traditional discipline training and can develop complex and resilient blended learning environments. Higher education institutions are, in the majority, still not well equipped for supporting a pedagogic mindset, skillset and experimental approach to new learning for lecturers and others carrying the teaching practice. Although emphasis in teaching quality is noted in funding mechanisms and/or auditing for teaching quality (see e.g., the National Student Survey in the UK), there is still a divide between research and teaching. The need for parity of esteem between them is known but still far from the reality in most research-oriented institutions. This article opens a dialogue drawing on our ongoing experience and, we hope, paves the way for further educational research in Connected Learning pedagogies.