This proposal is focused on open schooling initiatives and the implementation of the Living Lab (LL) methodology in the context of Science Education. It aims to encourage schools to collaborate with stakeholders in order to foster community well-being. This study focuses on analysing the projects undertaken by students when engaged in open schooling activities following principles of Living Lab methodology, by investigating how the type of prototype and stakeholder support influence students' degree of development in terms of their intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and civic engagement to participate in innovation communities. This investigation involved the participation of six nations, namely Croatia, Cyprus, France, Greece, Portugal, and Spain, each representing different educational systems. A total of 465 primary and secondary students took part in 20 projects that progressed to the Experimentation and Evaluation stages of the LL methodology. Students completed a questionnaire both before and after they carried out their projects. The data analysis revealed the three types of prototypes that students engaged in, namely (a) digital prototypes, (b) physical prototypes, and (c) services with real people. Analyses demonstrated significant impact of digital prototypes on students’ intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and civic engagement and the services involving real people had a notable impact on students' civic engagement. However, physical prototypes had no effect on the intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, or civic engagement of students. The findings suggest that the development of digital prototypes within a LL project has the potential to make teaching and learning more engaging and motivating for students, improve their self-efficacy, and enhance their participation and involvement in civic-related issues by increasing students' engagement in identifying and resolving issues of public concern. Background: A Living Lab (LL) is a virtual or physical environment in which multiple stakeholders interact to address real-world issues and co-create solutions for societal concerns in the form of technologies, services, and products (Leminen & Westerlund, 2016). Open Schooling (OS) envisions that schools, in cooperation with other stakeholders, will become agents of community well-being by creating new partnerships in their local communities (Sotiriou et al, 2021). Such an approach incorporates a diverse group of participants and brings together schools, researchers, and community stakeholders to create a user-centered ecosystem for open innovation (Alonso & Wong, 2020).

Despite the growing research interest of OS and LLs over the past several years, there are still many undiscovered aspects, especially when students from diverse cultural backgrounds co-operate with stakeholders coming from various organisations and professions in creating prototypes or implementing solutions to address real-world problems. Motivated students, willing to participate in OS research and co-creation activities, are essential for the functioning of a LL, given that the underlying philosophy is that participants’ ideas, experiences, and knowledge, as well as their everyday needs and wants, should be the starting point in innovation (Bergvall-Kareborn & Stahlbrost, 2009).

The first phase of a LL project consists of brainstorming and identifying a community issue requiring attention, followed by the design and creation of a prototype (i.e., Exploration phase), experimentation and testing of their prototype (i.e., Experimentation phase), and evaluation of the product or service (i.e., Evaluation phase). Participants are thereby actively involved as “co-creators” of the product or service; they are involved from the earliest stages of the innovation process, and their experiences and preferences are incorporated into the design of the product or service (Dekker et al., 2020). However, effective co-creation depends on the selection and use of appropriate methodologies and procedures, since they may have a substantial impact on project outcomes (Steen et al., 2011).

Research Aims: We aimed to expand our knowledge on whether the type of prototype that students design and construct in the context of a LL project they engage with may be linked to their intrinsic motivation (inherent satisfaction in learning science for its own sake), self-efficacy (confidence in ability to succeed in science), and civic engagement (individual and collective actions designed to identify and address issues of public concern). Consequently, the following research questions were addressed: (1) What types of prototypes students’ develop when engaged in a LL project?, and (2) Which type of prototype is more likely to increase students' (i) intrinsic motivation, (ii) self-efficacy, and (iii) civic engagement? Methodology or Methods/ Research Instruments or Sources Used: Participants: Participants in this research were 465 students (224 males and 215 females, 26 N/A) aged 9–18 years (mean age in years: 12.62), from 20 schools in six countries (Croatia, Cyprus, France, Greece, Portugal, and Spain). During designing and implementing their LL project, students had the opportunity to create different types of prototypes to evaluate the applicability of their suggested solutions, identify their advantages and drawbacks and refine them accordingly. Tools and data collection Students’ Questionnaire: A 5-point Likert-scale questionnaire (adapted from Glynn et al., 2011) was administered to students before the school LL project and after completing the project. The questionnaire included 18 items pertaining to students' intrinsic motivation (IM), self-efficacy (SE), and civic engagement (CE). The calculation of Cronbach’s alpha revealed the value of .89, indicating that scale’s reliability was satisfactory. LL Project Reports: The types of prototypes participants created and tested were extracted from LL project reports that each school submitted after completing the LL project. Data analysis: Open coding analysis was used to identify the types of prototypes developed by students during the LL project. To identify the effects of prototype type on students’ intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy and civic engagement, paired-sample t-tests were conducted to compare students’ IM, SE, and CE. The three types of prototypes that were identified from the analysis of students’ LL projects refer to: (a) digital prototypes that pertained to the development of computer applications, websites, videos digital stories; (b) physical prototypes such as posters, flyers, food products, packages, etc.; and (c) services with real people which encompassed campaigns, petitions, workshops, provision of support for people in need.

Findings showed that the type of prototype students engage in affects in different ways their IM, SE, and CE. Specifically, digital prototypes appeared to facilitate students’ IM, SE, and CE in a significant way (p<.001). For the service with real people prototype, only students’ CE revealed statistically significant results (p<.05), whereas physical prototypes (p>.05) did not support students’ development in any direction. This outcome may be explained by the fact that the increasing usage of digital technology over the past several years, notably after the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, has necessitated significant changes in educational institutions throughout the world. During this period, digital technology became an integral part of students' daily lives and had virtually replaced nearly every face-to-face activity (Papouli et al., 2020), thereby transforming the way students engage in activities and inherently influencing all facets of the student experience. The findings of this study suggest that the development of digital prototypes within a LL project has the potential to make teaching and learning more engaging and motivating for students, improve their self-efficacy, and enhance their participation and involvement in civic-related issues by increasing students' engagement in identifying and resolving issues of public concern. The findings have practical ramifications, since they can help researchers and educators in selecting the type of prototype for their students to engage with, when taking part in a LL school project, that could potentially foster their IM, SE, and CE. However, there is a need for a deeper understanding of the types and nature of prototypes developed by students, as well as how and why this process impacts on or is related to the development of their science attitudes and civic involvement. The results provide empirical backing for collaborative interactions between stakeholders involved in curriculum development and policymakers within the educational domain.

Alonso Curbelo, A., & Wong, M. (2020). Social Living Lab Methodology. Bergvall, B., & Stahlbrost, A. (2009). Living Lab: an open and citizen-centric approach for innovation. International journal of innovation and regional development, 1(4), 356-370. Dekker, R., Franco Contreras, J., & Meijer, A. (2020). The living lab as a methodology for public administration research. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(14), 1207-1217. Glynn, S.M., Brickman, P., Armstrong, N., & Taasoobzi,G.(2011). Science motivation questionnaire II: Validation with science majors and nonscience majors. Journal of research in science teaching, 48(10),1159-1176. Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2016). A framework for understanding the different research avenues of living labs. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 11(4), 399-420. Papouli, E., Chatzifotiou, S., & Tsairidis, C. (2020). The use of digital technology at home during the COVID-19 outbreak: Views of social work students in Greece. Social Work Education, 39(8), 1107-1115. Sotiriou M, Sotiriou S and Bogner FX (2021) Developing a Self-Reflection Tool to Assess Schools’ Openness. Front. Educ. 6:714227. Steen, M., Manschot, M., & De Koning, N. (2011). Benefits of co-design in service design projects. International Journal of Design, 5(2).