=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2712/paper1
|storemode=property
|title=Workshop Report: Hybrid Learning Spaces – Data, Design, Didactics
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2712/paper01.pdf
|volume=Vol-2712
|authors=Yishay Mor,Yannis Dimitriadis,Christian Köppe
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ectel/Mor0K19
}}
==Workshop Report: Hybrid Learning Spaces – Data, Design, Didactics==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2712/paper01.pdf
Workshop Report: Hybrid Learning Spaces – Data,
Design, Didactics
Yishay Mor1[0000-0001-8079-8443], Yannis Dimitriadis2[0000-0001-7275-2242]
and Christian Köppe3[0000-0003-0326-678X]
1
MEITAL, Tel Aviv, Israel
yish@yishaymor.org
2
Universidad de Valladolid, Paseo Belén 15, 47011 Valladolid, Spain
yannis@tel.uva.es
3
Utrecht University, Princetonplein 5, 3584 CC, Utrecht, The Netherlands,
c.koppe@uu.nl
Abstract. This report presents the results of a workshop on Hybrid Learning
Spaces (HLS), held in Delft in the Netherlands as part of the EC-TEL
conference. A group of experts gathered to exchange their work on various
aspects of hybrid learning spaces. During the first half of the workshop we used
the format of a writers’ workshop for discussing each contribution in detail and
providing feedback to the authors. In the second half of the workshop, we
started with identifying and sharing our values and visions as a group. Based on
these values and visions, we defined design principles and epistemic principles
that support these principles. As the last part of the workshop, we worked
collaboratively on good practices which were described as educational design
patterns. This volume of the workshop proceedings contains this summary
paper and nine contributions on aspects regarding pedagogy, technology
support and case studies of hybrid learning spaces.
Keywords: Design Patterns, Hybrid Learning Spaces, Technology-Enhanced Learning
1 Introduction
Technology is permeating physical spaces, augmenting and enhancing learning
experiences. At the same time, mobile and pervasive Internet-connected technology
(IoT) creates interfaces between virtual spaces and real-world phenomena in which
big data is collected. These dynamics give rise to a growing presence of hybridity: the
blurring of boundaries between distinct contexts of learning and activity, and the
unexpected interleaved experiences they engender (Ellis & Goodyear, 2016; Trentin,
2016). Hybridity is not a technical issue. As Stommel (2012) notes: “The word
‘hybrid’ has deeper resonances, suggesting not just that the place of learning is
changed but that a hybrid pedagogy fundamentally rethinks our conception of place”.
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative
Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
2
Cook et al. (2016) identify two dimensions of hybridity: the interleaving of formal
and informal social structures in an activity system, and the combination of physical
and digital tools mediating an individual's interaction with the world and society.
They argue: “people connect and interact through a hybrid network of physical and
technology-mediated encounters to co-construct knowledge and effectively engage in
positioning practices necessary for their work” (Cook et al., 2016, pp. 125). Higher
education (but not only) recognises the potential of hybrid learning spaces in
promoting significant changes in learning, and hybrid pedagogical models are gaining
prominence (do Mejía Gallegos et al., 2017). Recent work has begun exploring the
nature of hybridity from an educational design perspective (Köppe, Nørgård, &
Pedersen, 2017). The COVID19 pandemic has forced institutions to explore new
models of educational provision, such as the HyFlex model (Abdelmalak & Parra,
2016), where students can choose between participating in class or online.
Hybrid learning spaces open opportunities and pose challenges to designers of
learning experiences. Apart from the complexity of combining multiple modalities to
achieve effective synergies, these spaces have a novel quality: activities within them
generate data, which can be used to monitor individual and social learning processes,
and potentially feed back into them, to enable “double loop learning”: awareness and
control of the process of learning and teaching itself (Blaschke, 2012). Recent years
have witnessed a growing interest in the promise of educational data science (EDS), a
term coalescing learning analytics (Ferguson, 2012), artificial intelligence and
educational data mining (Cohen, 2017; du Boulay et al., 2018; Levi Gamlieli, Cohen,
& Nachmias, 2015; Lim, 2016). In particular, there is an emerging recognition of the
valuable intersection between data and educational design (Hernández-Leo et al.,
2017; Mor et al., 2015; Toetenel, & Rienties, 2016). While the tradition of EDS
originated in the study of virtual learning environments, recently we see first advances
into its use in physical environments (Cukurova et al., 2017; Prieto et al., 2018).
However, although the correlation between physical space design and educational
effect is well established (Tanner, 2000), learning space research is a relatively new
field of study that seeks to inform the design, evaluation and management of learning
spaces (Ellis & Goodyear, 2016) and EDS has not yet ventured into this domain.
Along with the opportunities that arise from these hybrid learning spaces, there are
issues that require an in-depth discussion among the community of researchers,
developers, and practitioners in the field. While some of these issues are well
understood, others are only beginning to be explored. For example:
● Personalisation and collaboration: hybrid learning spaces bring together learners
with different constraints, agendas, assumptions, and expectations. Some might be
co-located, some might be remote in time and place. How do we cater to such
diverse and ill-defined cohorts? How do we leverage this diversity to create
effective and powerful learning experiences?
● Ownership and empowerment: when we mix learning contexts, e.g. a curricular
course and a MOOC, who sets the learning objectives? Who is responsible for
monitoring achievement? Who “owns” the space, the curriculum, the content and
the data?
● Representation and interpretation: How do we map the data we collect to complex
learning dynamics? How do we avoid the “streetlight effect”, of valuing what we
3
can measure rather than measuring what we value? How do we derive insights
from data, and present them in such a way that will inform and assist learners,
teachers, and administrators?
● Ethics: what are the risks and consequences of collecting and manipulating data
about learners and learning environments? How do we draw the line between
assessment, evaluation and surveillance? What are the appropriate modes of
behaviour in hybrid learning spaces? Moreover, what is the purpose of education
in hybrid learning spaces, where learners come from divergent backgrounds and
with different aims?
In September 2019 a unique trans-disciplinary workshop brought together leading
researchers and practitioners in this emerging field, to explore the promises and
dilemmas it raises from ethical, methodological, ontological, epistemic, pedagogic,
and technological perspectives. We received contributions that contribute to a design
discourse: design as a practical approach to shaping the future and design as a
scientific paradigm, drawing on the traditions of educational design research (Mor &
Winters, 2007) and utilising canonical design representations such as design
principles and design patterns (Dimitriadis et al., 2009; Falconer et al., 2011; Mor,
2013; Retalis et al., 2006; Warburton & Mor, 2015).
2 Workshop Structure
The workshop was structured in itself as a hybrid event. Our collaborative work
started in July with a shepherding process for accepted papers after a rigorous peer
review process. In early September, all the papers were shared online for peer
feedback and discussion. On Sept. 16th we met at the EC TEL conference in Delft.
Some of the participants could not attend physically, and joined us by video
conference. The day was divided into several sections: plenary talks, a writers’
workshop and a pattern storming session.
2.1 Writers’ Workshop
Following the opening plenary, the first half of the workshop was structured as an
agile writers’ workshop. Participants broke into three workshop groups and discussed
each other’s contributions. These discussions did not include presentations of the
papers themselves: instead, participants are expected to read those beforehand and
prepare comments and suggestions for improvement.
2.2 Pattern Storming
The second half of the day built on the insights from the morning to sketch a
Signature Pedagogy (Shulman, 2005) for Hybrid learning spaces. Shulman notes that
a signature pedagogy has three layers:
● The Surface structure – “concrete, operational acts of teaching and learning, of
showing and demonstrating, of questioning and answering, of interacting and
withholding, of approaching and withdrawing”
4
● The Deep structure – “a set of assumptions about how best to impart a certain body
of knowledge and know-how”, and –
● The Implicit structure – “a moral dimension that comprises a set of beliefs about
the professional attitudes, values, and dispositions”
We considered these three layers, and used the following constructs to describe them:
● Value and Vision statements – to describe the implicit structure
● Design Principles and Epistemic Principles – to describe the deep structure
● Design Patterns – to describe the surface structure
3 Workshop Results
3.1 Writers’ Workshops
All papers got feedback and all authors were encouraged to submit their work to the
special section of BJET journal on Hybrid Learning Spaces. The accepted papers for
BJET are included in the workshop proceedings as extended abstracts. The other
revised papers are included as full papers in the workshop proceedings.
3.2 Values and Visions
In the first round of the pattern storming session, all participants started to identify
their core values and shared these with the group. The goal was to make the
underlying implicit values of the group’s practices explicit and to use them for
aligning the visions, principles and patterns identified in the next steps.
After a brainstorm phase, all identified values were clustered (see Figure 1) and some
common themes emerged.
Fig. 1. Clustered values
5
The main themes of the values were:
● Collaboration
● Creativity/curiosity
● Transparency
● Accessibility
● Social diversity
● Equality
● Flexibility
As the next step, the participants identified visions for hybrid learning spaces which
activate the previously identified values. These visions comprised both what students
and educators will do or express. Visions regarding other stakeholders were also
welcome. The participants also linked these visions to specific embodied values.
Figures 2-4 show some examples.
Fig. 2. Visions from student’s perspective
6
Fig. 3. Visions from educator’s perspective
Fig. 4. Visions statements for other stakeholders
3.3 Design Principles
Moving to the deep structure layer of signature pedagogy, the participants worked on
potential design principles including consequences of and causes for applying them.
Figure 5 shows a few examples.
7
Fig. 5. Examples of design principles
3.4 Design Patterns
After values and visions have been identified, the participants collected concrete
examples of hybrid education from the group’s own development and teaching
practice. This resulted in numerous post-its with concrete activities, practices and
formats for hybrid education. Some (summarized) examples are:
● Make your own rubric (students make rubrics themselves)
● One avatar for each student and both online platform and physical interactions
● Translate digital activities/concepts into the physical world (as e.g. done in
computer science unplugged1)
● Trash exhibition – using found materials to create artworks and inviting the local
community reflecting on topics of interest (a specialization of the design pattern
RE-MEDIATION (Köppe et al., 2019))
● Moderating online forums in face-to-face activities/classroom
● Teachers customize the level of control over the activity, guided vs unguided
● Use an app which tracks your location and reacts to it
● Teacher/student gets immediate feedback of the software/hybrid technology used
by the students
● Have a plan B without technology
● Remote buddies/body double
● Students receive guidance on demand
There were also some practices collected which already have been described as
design patterns, which confirms the validity of these patterns. Some examples are:
1
https://csunplugged.org/en/
8
● Students have control over the seminar activity – part of both CO-CONSTRUCTED
CURRICULUM and STUDENTS AS CO-CREATORS OF COURSE MATERIAL
● Create artifacts that can easily move and get referenced through spaces –
INTERACTIVE TANGIBLE OBJECTS
● Have an external employer help young graduates to gain practical knowledge –
ENGAGING WITH EXPERTS
● Collaborative annotation, using google doc and hyperlinks – COLLECTIVE
ANNOTATION
● Provide opportunities for anonymous participation – part of RAPID DISCUSSION
● Giving students digital space to unite participants & discuss each other’s ideas –
part of STUDENT PROJECT WEBSITE, HYBRID GROUP SHARE and HYBRID
CLASSROOM DISCUSSION
● Allow individual learning paths – MULTIPLE LEARNING PATHS
As final activity, four pattern candidates were chosen by the participants and refined
towards a full design pattern using the Pattern Writing Sheet from (Iba, 2014). The
details of each pattern – context, forces, problem, solution, actions and consequences
– were discussed and documented. Figure 6 shows one example of these patterns.
Fig. 6. Example pattern
9
4 Papers in this Volume
Besides this summary report, this volume contains nine manuscripts, out of 11
research works presented in the workshop. Four of them correspond to extended
abstracts, while the rest of them are full papers.
FULL PAPERS
Estíbaliz Fraca, Maria Kambouri, Nicole Yuen, Rozina Bakirtzoglou, Gavin Mair,
Ashley Highmore, Carys Hubbard, and Manolis Mavrikis, “A Hybrid Learning Space
for Physically-Active Mathematics: the case of Numberfit“ -
This paper presents the case study of an intervention called Numberfit that aims at
capturing primarily students’ interest in mathematics by combining team games and
physical activity. The authors describe the hybrid learning space that includes an
online platform. The changing role of the teacher is examined and some
methodological insights are provided for conducting research in relation to student’s
affect, motivation and behaviour in this context.
Marianna Ioannou, Andri Ioannou, Yiannis Georgiou and Michael Boloudakis,
“Orchestrating the Technology-Enhanced Embodied Learning Classroom via
Learning Stations Rotation: A case study“
This case study presents researchers’ and teachers’ efforts in orchestrating a
technology-enhanced embodied learning classroom in elementary education
demonstrating the strategies and methods adopted. The authors contribute to
advancing our knowledge of how to improve practice with respect to planning and
orchestrating the classroom environment, as new technologies (e.g., motion-based
technologies, natural user interfaces) and emerging pedagogies (e.g., embodied
learning) find their way into the classroom.
Christian Köppe and Rody Middelkoop, “On Using Hybrid Pedagogy as Guideline
for Improving Assessment Design“
The authors address phenomena which can be present in assessments of larger
assignments and identify dichotomy-thinking as a possible reason. They discuss how
Hybrid Pedagogy as a design guideline can help with finding appropriate solutions
and provide concrete examples of how it was applied for the design of assessment
strategies in a course on software engineering.
10
Ellen Rusman and Barbara van den Broek, “‘Bridging’ social contexts to learn from
everyday life (mis)communication incidents: theoretical framing of the design of a
digital reflection tool for primary school children with language impairments”
This work describes a design-based research project where a digital reflection tool
was designed to support children with capturing (both positive and negative)
(mis)communication incidents they experience during their everyday life, which can
become ‘artefacts’ facilitating reflection with others. Additionally, they report on
theoretical concepts that informed the design of the digital reflection tool.
Sergio Serrano-Iglesias, Eduardo Gómez-Sánchez, Miguel L. Bote-Lorenzo, Juan I.
Asensio-Pérez, Adolfo Ruiz Calleja, Guillermo Vega-Gorgojo and Yannis
Dimitriadis, “Personalizing the connection between formal and informal learning in
Smart Learning Environments”
This paper focuses on Smart Learning Environments which are aiming at
automatically adapting the learning experiences based on the learner’s context. The
authors explore the information flow needed to model the current context and state of
the learner to eventually trigger informal learning interventions.
EXTENDED ABSTRACTS (the full papers are published in the special issue of the
BJET journal)
Laia Albó and Davinia Hernández-Leo, “How Educators Value Design Analytics for
Blended Learning”
In their paper, the authors explore the opinions of teachers regarding the use of
design analytics, probably the least explored type of data in educational technology
together with community analytics. Specifically, they analyse the value that design
analytics can offer in authoring experiences using the edCrumble learning design
tool.
John Cook, Yishay Mor and Patricia Santos, “Three cases of hybridity in learning
spaces: towards a design for a Zone of Possibility“
This work contributes to design discourse by drawing on Educational Design
Research (EDR) that has been conducted into what we call a Zone of Possibility
(ZoP) over the past seven years. The authors present 3 cases (Confer, ZoP Stokes
Croft and Google Lens in HE) that have provided insights to explore the concept of
the ZoP and its implications for EDR.
11
Liat Eyal and Einat Gil, “Design patterns for teaching in academic settings in future
learning spaces (FLS)”
This work uses a design pattern theoretical approach and looks at the interplay
between the space and activity design in future learning spaces. The authors focus on
the process of extracting practices as a basis for design patterns: an analysis of
narratives, generalization of elements, definition of the patterns and design
principles resulting from them on a theoretical level. Four concrete activity design-
patterns for teaching and learning in FLS are included.
Alex Young Pedersen, “Towards a Conceptualization of Hybrid Educational Spaces
(HES)“
The paper introduces the concept of Hybrid Educational Spaces (HES). These spaces
are emergent within a specific institutional setting and are the structures that enable
the field of Hybrid Education. They involve educational patterns supporting hybrid
pedagogy and new concepts of citizenship. The paper argues that HES be
distinguished from the Hybrid Learning Spaces in at least two ways which refer to
theoretical and practical differences between ‘education’ and ‘learning’.
Alice Veldkamp, Joke Daemen, Stijn Teekens, Stefan Koelewijn, Marie-Christine P.J.
Knippels, and Wouter R. van Joolingen, “Escape boxes: bringing escape room
experience into the classroom”
The authors explore the implementation of escape rooms in education in the form of
escape boxes. They describe the design process and provide concrete examples of
escape box implementations.
5 Summary and Future Work
The Hybrid Learning Spaces workshop at EC TEL opened a timely and important
conversation. The echoes of this conversation have already reverbated in a special
issue of a learning sciences journal, and will be further developed in an upcoming
book. In particular, we see an acute need for a cross-disciplinary exploration and
articulation of a design language for hybrid learning spaces. This design language
should include a signature pedagogy, encompassing the values, beliefs, principles and
patterns of educational practices within these spaces, and the corresponding guiding
frameworks for designing the physical and virtual spaces which host these educational
practices. We hope that this collection of papers, along with the BJET special issue
and the upcoming book, will contribute towards this end.
12
References
1. Abdelmalak, M. M. M. & Parra, J. L. (2016). Expanding Learning Opportunities for
Graduate Students with HyFlex Course Design. International Journal of Online Pedagogy
and Course Design, 6, 19-37. doi: 10.4018/IJOPCD.2016100102
2. Blaschke, L.M. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical
practice and self-determined learning. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 13, 56-71.
3. Cook, J., Ley, T., Maier, R., Mor, Y., Santos, P., Lex, E., Dennerlein, S., Trattner, C. &
Holley, D. (2016). Using the hybrid social learning network to explore concepts, practices,
designs and smart services for networked professional learning. In Li Y. et al. (eds), State-
of-the-Art and Future Directions of Smart Learning (pp. 123–129) . Springer .
4. Ellis, R. A., & Goodyear, P. (2016). Models of learning space: integrating research on
space, place and learning in higher education. Review of Education, 4(2), 149-191.
5. Iba, T. (2014). A Journey on the Way to Pattern Writing. Preprints of the 21st Pattern
Languages of Programs Conference, PLoP’14.
6. do Mejía Gallegos, C. G., el Michalón Dueñas, D. E., Acosta, M., Andrés, R., López
Fernández, R., & Sánchez Gálvez, S. (2017). Hybrid learning spaces. Towards an
education of the future at the Guayaquil University. MediSur, 15(3), 350-355.
7. Stommel, J. (2012). Hybridity, pt. 2: What is Hybrid Pedagogy?. Hybrid Pedagogy
https://hybridpedagogy.org/hybridity-pt-2-what-is-hybrid-pedagogy/
8. Tanner, C. K. (2000). The influence of school architecture on academic achievement.
Journal of Educational Administration, 38, 309-330.
9. Trentin, G. (2016). Always-on Education and Hybrid Learning Spaces. Educational
Technology, 56(2), 31-37.
10. Cohen, A. (2017). Analysis of student activity in web-supported courses as a tool for
predicting dropout. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(5), 1285-
1304.
11. Cukurova, M., Luckin, R., Millán, E., Mavrikis, M. & Spikol, D. (2017). Diagnosing
collaboration in practice-based learning: Equality and Intra-individual variability of
physical interactivity. European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (p./pp. 30-
42).
12. du Boulay, B., Poulovasillis, A., Holmes, W. & Mavrikis, M. (2018). Artificial
Intelligence And Big Data Technologies To Close The Achievement Gap. In R. Luckin
(ed.), Enhancing Learning and Teaching with Technology (pp. 256–285). UCL Institute of
Education Press.
13. Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: Drivers, developments and challenges.
International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4, 304-317.
14. Dimitriadis, Y., Goodyear, P. & Retalis, S. (2009). Using e-learning design patterns to
augment learners’ experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 997 – 998. doi: DOI:
10.1016/j.chb.2009.02.001
15. Falconer, I., Finlay, J. & Fincher, S. (2011). Representing practice: practice models,
patterns, bundles …. Learning, Media and Technology, 36, 101-127. doi:
10.1080/17439884.2011.553620
16. Köppe, C., Nørgård, R. T., & Pedersen, A. Y. (2017). Towards a Pattern Language for
Hybrid Education. In Proceedings of the Vikingplop 2017 Conference.
17. Mor, Y. (2013). SNaP! Re-using, sharing and communicating designs and design
knowledge using Scenarios, Narratives and Patterns. In R. Luckin, P. Goodyear, B.
Grabowski, S. Puntambekar, N. Winters & J. Underwood (ed.),Handbook of Design in
Educational Technology (pp. 189-200) . Routledge .
13
18. Mor, Y. & Warburton, S. (2014). Assessing the value of design narratives, patterns and
scenarios in scaffolding co-design processes in the domain of technology enhanced
learning. In S. Bayne, C. Jones, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg & C. Sinclair (eds.), Proceedings of
the 9th International Conference on Networked Learning 2014, ISBN: 978-1-86220-304-4
19. Mor, Y., Mellar, H., Warburton, S. & Winters, N. (eds.) (2014). Practical Design Patterns
for Teaching and Learning with Technology. Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense.
20. Mor, Y. & Winters, N. (2007). Design approaches in technology enhanced learning.
Interactive Learning Environments, 15, 61-75.
21. Retalis, S., Georgiakakis, P. & Dimitriadis, Y. (2006). Eliciting design patterns for e-
learning systems. Computer Science Education, 16, 105-118.
22. Warburton, S. & Mor, Y. (2015). Double Loop Design: Configuring Narratives, Patterns
and Scenarios in the Design of Technology Enhanced Learning. In Y. Mor, M. Maina & B.
Craft (eds.), The Art and Science of Learning Design. Sense publishers
23. Hernández-Leo, D., Rodriguez Triana, M. J., Inventado, P. S. & Mor, Y. (2017). Preface:
Connecting Learning Design and Learning Analytics. Interaction Design and Architecture
(s) Journal-IxD&A, 33, 3-8.
24. Levi-Gamlieli, H., Cohen, A., & Nachmias, R. (2015). Detection of overly intensive
learning by using weblog of course website. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and
Learning (TICL), 10(2), 151-171.
25. Lim, J. M. (2016). Predicting successful completion using student delay indicators in
undergraduate self paced online courses. Distance Education, 37(3), 317-332.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2016.1233050
26. Mor, Y., Ferguson, R. & Wasson, B. (2015). Editorial: Learning design, teacher inquiry
into student learning and learning analytics: A call for action. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 46, 221-229. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12273
27. Prieto, L., Sharma, K., Kidzinski, Ł., Rodríguez-Triana, M. & Dillenbourg, P. (2018).
Multimodal teaching analytics: Automated extraction of orchestration graphs from
wearable sensor data. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12232
28. Toetenel, L. & Rienties, B. (2016). Analysing 157 learning designs using learning analytic
approaches as a means to evaluate the impact of pedagogical decision-making. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 47, 981-992. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12423
29. Köppe, C. et al. 2019. Hybrid Collaboration Patterns. Proceedings of the 25th Conference
on Pattern Languages of Programs, PLoP’18 (Portland, OR, USA, 2019).
14
HLS-D3 2019 Workshop organisers
• Yishay Mor, MEITAL, Israel
• Yannis Dimitriadis, Universidad de Valladolid, Spain
• Christian Köppe, Utrecht University, Netherlands
HLS-D3 2019 Programme Committee
• John Cook, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany
• Anat Cohen, Tel Aviv University, Israel
• Mutlu Cukurova, UCL, UK
• Michael Derntl, Tübingen, Germany
• Yannis Dimitriadis, Universidad de Valladolid, Spain
• Einat Gil, Levinsky college, Israel
• Denis Gillet, EPFL, Switzerland
• Christian Köppe, Utrecht University, Netherlands
• Christian Kohls, Cologne University of Applied Sciences, Germany
• Manolis Mavrikis, UCL, UK
• Marcelo Milrad, Linnaeus University, Sweden
• Yishay Mor, MEITAL, Israel
• Alex Young Pedersen, Aarhus University, Denmark
• Symeon Retalis, University of Piraeus, Greece
• María Jesús Rodríguez Triana, Tallinn University, Estonia
• Patricia Santos, Universitat Pompeu Fabra Barcelona, Spain
• Barbara Wasson, University of Bergen, Norway
• Steven Warburton, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
• Mar Pérez-Sanagustín, U. Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France