Name of the participant and other supporting staff if relevant

Gustavo Garcia Botero


Name of the module and discipline, level and  year of study

‘Case Studies Adult Education’(see: Case Studies Adult Education ( – Agogiek (applied social studies) & Master in Educational Sciences


Short description of the project? Main goals, ambitions, strategy?

Using a case study/ problem-solving approach, an (interdisciplinary) theoretical analysis is carried out on a concrete practical problem and solutions are proposed. The problem has relation with challenges outlined in the UN’s Sustainable development goals (SDGs).

During the course, students follow different modules via a MOOC. These are meant to equip students with the necessary knowledge to come up with a solution to this complex challenge. Students have meetings with the professors and representatives of the non-academic partner institutions along the semester. The final outcome consists of a strategic document outlining the steps to follow to deliver the challenge. This report contains an interdisciplinary literature review, and deliverables that help the partner institution to implement the solution suggested.


CERL project title(s) & Name of community partner and/or any other supporting partners (public or private sector)

Projects AY 2020-2021:

Ancienne Belgique ; INNOVIRIS; P&V; Flemish Parliament; Commune Ixelles; Capital; Citizenne Avansa

as part of the EUTOPIA weDISCOVER innovation challenges: The Open Innovation Challenge – EUTOPIA European University (


Can you provide any tangible info – e.g. module descriptor, learning outcomes, assignments, assessment criteria, …?

COURSE-SHEET: Case Studies Adult Education (

Example of break-out exercise to reflect on each case study through lens of Responsible Research and Innovation  


How was it taught, example: 

–        number of students?

–        groupwork or individual assignments?

–        How did you work with the partner?

–        how did the project proceed?

–        any reflection done with students?

–        evaluation or formal assessment of students learning?

–        Could or should we follow up with students?

–        Technology/platforms used?

-Number of students: 50

-Individual assignments (non graded)/ groupwork on partner institution challenge (graded)

-The partner institution supported the progress of the students along the course. The partner institution representatives provided feedback to students and professors on the progress along the course. The representatives also took part in the assessment of students’ final pitch of their proposals.

-At the end of the course, students filled-out a questionnaire about their satisfaction regarding different component of the course: quality of the course material, relationship with the partner institution, clarity regarding the partner institution challenge, follow-up by professors and institution representatives, added value to students’ professional path, etc. There were also some conversations with students in order to improve the course for the following academic year

-The evaluation was done 100% based on the group report handed in by students. However, the feedback from students made us realize that evaluation should be broken into different components. Formative evaluation should be given more priority.

-The platform used to host the MOOC was CANVAS while online plenary sessions were carried out via ZOOM or Teams.


What have you changed about your programme/course in relation to CERL?

A success:

“The variety of the institutions we partnered up with. The partner institutions had different goals and missions, allowing students to choose the institution they felt most identified with. This resulted in some students expressing their willingness to continue helping the institutions after the end of the course and the partnership.”

What I would like to improve:

“Shaping up the curriculum, content and the expected outcomes of the course. I feel students should be given more clarity about what is expected from them so that their final mark reflects the overall course goals and objectives. It happened that some students asked basic questions about their projects when we were already weeks into the academic year.”


What did your students learn or how will they benefit?

Students could put transferable skills into practice. Students were faced with a learning environment that pushed them to learn about interdisciplinarity, interpersonal communication, community  service, team work, critical thinking, social entrepreneurship… Students were given the chance to explore the non-academic environment while giving value to what they learned in campus.


From your perspective as an instructor, what did you learn or were the benefits?

Participation in CIRCLET increased my awareness about the possibilities to collaborate with an array of different stakeholders. I will share it through formal and informal meetings with colleagues and friends in and out of the academic sector. I want to become an advocate of CERL and I will encourage CERL practices in education.



What do you think the benefit was to the partner? Do they have any feedback from the partner?

In general, partners were pleased to work with a group of young and enthusiastic students who came up with fresh ideas that were not considered previously. Partners would like to sustain the collaboration with our course.


How could/will you improve your CERL teaching practice next time?

My main target for next year is to consolidate my CERL related module in the bachelor and master of educational sciences.

Next time, the course will be refined in terms of course content provided, evaluation, follow-up on students progress, partner institution challenge. We will make sure that students’ work along the semester is valued in contrast to have only one evaluation measure


Any challenges and how you overcame them?

The biggest challenge was to deliver the course during the Covid-19 pandemic. We had to update our digital skills and make sure that the synchronous and non-synchronic activities were carried out smoothly. I believe the biggest strength for the course was the teamwork between professors: There were two professors in charge of delivering the course and two professor assistants that supported course creation, content delivery, evaluation, student follow-up…