Where did the Lab take place?

Online (Klaipeda)

When did the Lab take place?

It started on Mon Nov 22th and continued on several additional days – each with a specific theme:

• Wed Nov 24th – Online cultural evening
• Thurs 25th to Fri 26th – teacher-group mentoring sessions
• Mon 29th to Thurs Dec 2nd – continued teacher/group mentoring sessions
• Fri Dec 3rd – Final group presentations

Who participated in the Lab?

At least 39 participants on the opening day. This number fluctuated slightly as the student teams were made up of between two to six or so students, and some could not be ever-present throughout the whole lab programme.

What was the topic of the Lab and why was it chosen?

“Sustainable solutions for a harbour city” was the overall topic, chosen at the start of the project. With the intention of the workshop being a physical one. In this case, students would have come to Klaipeda and worked on providing some sustainable solutions to coastal problems here.

However, because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the lab was switched to an online version. We therefore wanted to set a challenge that was not specifically coastal/harbour city focused, but instead individual partner campus focused on sustainable solutions to fit within UN SDGs.

Within this, there were five key topics (Transport, Energy, Coastal, Health, Waste/Recycling) that fitted into six UN SDGs categories (11: Sustainable Cities and Communities; 7: Affordable and Clean Energy; 14: Life Below Water; 3: Good Health and Well-Being; 12: Responsible Consumption and Production; and an overall SDG of 13: Climate Action).

The challenge for student teams was as follows

Participants will listen to a programme of speakers. The kick off session will have speakers who will provide participants with an overview of the SDGs and some reasoning behind these five SDGs goals. This will be followed up with a number of specific thematic presentations for each of the five chosen SDGs – Lithuanian and EU. These will be short punchy 15-20 minute presentations showcasing innovations already developed and in use that are helping to make a positive impact within these SDGs (similar perhaps to these and these.

The challenge for the student teams is to take one (or more) of the themes, define a local campus/Uni problem related to this theme, and develop an innovative solution that can be implemented and will make a positive SDG impact on campus / within their university.

During the two-week period, the teams will research the local issues, interview and define actors / blockers, and determine a solution. Participant teams will work on the challenge and report back – with a video presentation.

Major outcomes of students’/groups’ projects

Outcomes were eight (two partners worked together on one theme) highly polished and professional looking videos, each presenting the ideas and the solutions to a specific problem identified by each individual student team.

The videos were all very well-made considering the short time students had to plan, design, develop and implement their ideas into this format. Each of the videos has been evaluated as part of the award process, and these provide more detailed feedback. As a general overview though, each team/video did provide a clear connection to one of more of the SDGs – which was the overall aim for each of the teams. Prizes were awarded for the top three ideas – as judged by an independent panel of expert judges.

Role and involvement of policy makers

We had mentors appointed from each of the partner Universities, along with opportunities to engage with the speakers. In addition, our chosen panel of judges were all decision makers and policy influencers in and around the Klaipeda Region and from national Ministry departments.

Lessons learned from an organizational perspective

Following on from a very successful physical laboratory in Venice was difficult because expectations were high, and yet this laboratory was going to be online; how to keep the enthusiasm and motivation of the students who attended Venice? To try to counter this, we made efforts to have some cultural activities online. This was not easy but students appreciated it.

So in terms of lessons learnt, knowing expectations from students before is useful and then trying to fulfill these satisfactorily.

In addition, we would try next time to get our programme facilitator on-board as early as we can and to have him/her more in charge of the structure of the programme. As it was, we did what we felt was right and then only managed to get a facilitator once the programme had been almost agreed and finalised, meaning that she was facilitating ‘our’ programme – rather than something she had planned/organised herself.

Impact: What do students say about the experience?

Students enjoyed the challenge of working in and around their own campus on a problem. Also we received positive feedback about new skills learnt during the making of the videos.