At the level of CIVIS Alliance of universities, a mapping exercise took place over 2019-2020 identifying examples of practice of pedagogical innovation. More than 50 practices were collected, from a variety of academic fields, according to a common format, and then they were analysed based on their characteristics, but also according to different clustering models available in the literature (OECD, 2018; Open University 2019, 2020). The main objective of analysing examples of pedagogical innovation was twofold: to identify clusters of of pedagogical innovation in higher education teaching and learning, and to organize them in an academic resource package to inspire others. The key questions we tried to answer through the analysis were:

-        What are the main / most visible trends in learning process innovation in the eight participant universities?

-        How these innovations could be clustered and documented as examples of relevant practice?

-        What lessons could be drawn for inspiring and supporting pedagogical innovation in higher education?

The relevance of the analysis is increased by the current pandemic situation, which made innovative pedagogies a strategy to survive these difficult times for education. “Creativity and innovation in education are not just an opportunity, but a necessity” (Ferrari et al., 2009, pg. 47).

At this point, it is highly necessary to create robust evidence related to innovative pedagogies at HE level and how they can respond to the current challenges, in order to develop, apply and scale best practices within study programmes.

The whole initiative is actually a research and development one, as mapping was used to create professional development resources for academics, to stimulate pedagogical innovation and build un a networked institutional structure to address innovative pedagogies in a constant and systematic manner and contribute, in the same time, to reflective analysis of pedagogical innovation practices in the field, but also to ground a robust theoretical and methodological framework.

Our investigation is based on secondary analysis of examples of pedagogical innovation collected from the eight universities, members in the Civis Alliance. The data collection, although did not impose any restrictions concerning the academic area, was conducted in a pre-determined format, which, among others, contained: - Description of the innovative pedagogy (type of learning process innovation, presentation of the main steps, roles and responsibilities of participants) - Impacted learning results (expected outcomes, both cognitive and non-cognitive, evidence of impact, if any) - Opportunities for virtual mobility (does the innovative pedagogy offer any chance for virtual mobility of students / academics, is there any space for internationalization?) - Possibility to train others (is there capacity and meaning in the host university to train others in adopting the innovation?) Clustering these innovative pedagogies practiced by the CIVIS universities shows us what are the broad tendencies on the matter of interest and perspective for innovating educational practices at HE level. We have used a four-dimension matrix and classified examples of practice allocating them to 1-3 of the dimensions in the matrix: a) Technology-based pedagogical innovation - Online / digital: OER, platforms (MOOCs), blended learning, online laboratories, artificial intelligence in education; - Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR): Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), Multisensory learning; - Labs: FabLab, Makerspace, Science in remote labs, Open labs; b) Methodology-based pedagogical innovation - Flipped / Reverse / Parallel learning and classroom - Experiential learning design / design thinking / universal design - Game- / Play-based learning etc. c) Skill-based pedagogical innovation - Cognitive skills: learning analytics, making thinking visible, computational thinking - Non-cognitive development innovations: learning experiences addressing emotional and social development, cultural awareness, empathy, etc. - Transversal / Transferable skills driven innovations: stimulation of entrepreneurship, creativity, intercultural communication, etc. - Core professional skills: i.e. medical skills d) Context driven pedagogical innovation / real-world driven pedagogical innovation - Community-based learning, service learning - Real-world: project-based learning, problem-solving, challenge-based learning Diversity of approaches when trying to innovate learning process is a sign of constant preoccupation, search and reflection in academia about creating more solid and authentic learning experiences. Having a conceptual framework based both on literature, but consolidated as result of collected practice analysis offers not just an image of the field, but a solid ground to develop and exchange resources, as well as stimulate creation of professional networks across domains.

Based on our analysis, we created a framework of reference based on four clusters of innovative pedagogies, and, based on that, a training program for academics was developed, aiming to use examples of relevant practice for professional development, reflection and stimulation of pedagogical innovation. It is shown that one of the methods of ensuring HE sustainability is by creating academic networks and, by their use, sharing and exchanging best practices, adopting innovative methods of teaching and pedagogies, inculcating skills and attitudes among the students so that they can become global and responsible citizens (Sahasrabudhe, Shaikh, & Kasat, 2020). The continuation of this project is to set up a network of pedagogical innovation centres in the eight universities to carry on research and development activity related to this very important aspect of learning improvement in higher education.

Averill, R. M., & Major, J. (2020). What motivates higher education educators to innovate? Exploring competence, autonomy, and relatedness – and connections with wellbeing. Educational Research, 62(2), 146-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2020.1755877 Barnett, R. (2012). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research & Development, 31, 65-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.642841 Béchard, J.-P., & Pelletier, P. (2001). Développement des innovations pédagogiques en milieu universitaire: un cas d’apprentissage organisationnel. In Nouveaux espaces de développement professionnel et organisationnel, neuvième chapiter (pp. 131-149). Éditions du CRP: Université de Sherbrooke. Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2009). Innovation and Creativity in Education and Training in the EU Member States: Fostering Creative Learning and Supporting Innovative Teaching. Literature review on Innovation and Creativity in E&T in the EU Member States (ICEAC). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/EURdoc/JRC52374_TN.pdf Gilbert, A., Tait-McCutcheon, S., & Knewstubb, B. (2020). Innovative teaching in higher education: Teachers’ perceptions of support and constraint. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2020.1715816 Herodotou, C., Sharples, M., Gaved, M., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Rienties, B., Scanlon, E., & Whiteblock, D. (2019). Innovative Pedagogies for the Future: An Evidence-Based Selection. Frontiers in Education, 4(113). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00113 Istance, D., & Paniagua, A. (2019). Learning to Leapfrog: Innovative Pedagogies to Transform Education. Center for Universal Education at Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/learning-toleapfrog/ Kukulska-Hulme, A., Beirne, E., Conole, G., Costello, E., Coughlan, T., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Holmes, W., Mac Lochlainn, C., Nic Giollamhichil, M., Rienties, B., Sargent, J., Scanlon, E., Sharples, M., & Whiteblock, D. (2020). Innovating Pedagogy 2020: Open University Innovation Report 8. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Retrieved from https://iet.open.ac.uk/file/innovating-pedagogy-2020.pdf Mutton, T. (2020). Teacher education and Covid-19: responses and opportunities for new pedagogical initiatives. Journal of Education for Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1805189 OECD. (2020). Back to the Future of Education: Four OCED Scenarios for Schooling. Educational Research and Innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/178ef527-en Paniagua, A, & Istance, D. (2018). Teachers as Designers of Learning Environments: The Importance of Innovative Pedagogies. Educational Research and Innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264085374-en Peterson, A. (2018). The purpose of pedagogy. In A. Peterson, H. Dumont, M. Lafuente, & N. Law (Eds.). Understanding innovative pedagogies: Key themes to analyse new approaches to teaching and learning. OECD Education Working Papers No. 172 (pp. 8-12). Paris: OECD Publishing. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9f843a6e-en Walder, A. M. (2014). The concept of pedagogical innovation in higher education. Education Journal, 3, 195-202. DOI: 10.11648/j.edu.20140303.22.