Next Article in Journal
Analysis of Key Factors Affecting Low-Carbon Travel Behaviors of Urban Residents in Developing Countries: A Case Study in Zhenjiang, China
Previous Article in Journal
Roadmap to a Circular Economy by 2030: A Comparative Review of Circular Business Model Visions in Germany and Japan
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/su15065376
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sustainability through Factory-Based Learning in Higher Education

by
Zhao Jing
1,
Jamshid Ali Turi
2,
Song Lu
3,* and
Joanna Rosak-Szyrocka
4
1
College of Foreign Studies, Hubei Normal University, 11 Cihu Road, Huangshi 435002, China
2
Faculty of Business Administration, University of Tabuk, Tabuk 47512, Saudi Arabia
3
Postgraduate Faculty of Education, Languages & Psychology, SEGI University, Jalan Teknologi, Kota Damansara, Petaling Jaya 47810, Malaysia
4
Faculty of Management, Czestochowa University of Technology, 42-201 Czestochowa, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(6), 5376; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065376
Submission received: 1 February 2023 / Revised: 26 February 2023 / Accepted: 1 March 2023 / Published: 17 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Education and Approaches)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
One of the main sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the United Nations (UN) is to teach people how to live in a sustainable way. Because of this, skill-based education is becoming more popular and is an important part of educational and social growth. Learning Factory (LF) provides gateways to skilled-based education. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to investigate the significance of the LF in academic institutions for educational and sustainable development. A multi-method research approach was used, including a literature review and bibliometric analysis, together with an overview of experts’ opinions. Furthermore, a case study of the success of LF has also been included to support the phenomenon of interest and determine the feasibility of LFs. Developing a trained future workforce for inclusive sustainable development is a requirement for modern higher education in order to achieve sustainable development goals. Furthermore, collaboration between academia and industry is required to train a future workforce for inclusive sustainable development and to achieve sustainable development goals. The study provides unique practices and experiences for educational and sustainable development. Furthermore, it insists on universities being more open to deep and local knowledge collaborations.

1. Introduction

The Learning Factory (LF) is stimulating higher education worldwide. It believes in transferring research to the industry. At the same time, it also focuses on bringing industry to the classroom to root out the inner and hidden technical and soft skill capabilities of the learners [1,2], since LF has the ability and capacity to convert abstract learning ideas into simulated learning, which can then be converted into concrete learning via assimilation and accommodation processes [3,4].Additionally, LF develops curiosity, innovation, and self-guided learning, which leads to innovation and invention among learners as LF provides an open platform for brainstorming, ideation, and conception. Moreover, it develops independent thinking, which inculcates leadership qualities among learners [5,6,7].
LF is the combination of two words, “learning” and “factory”, and encompasses the features, processes, and techniques of both theoretical knowledge and practical skills [8]. LF can be called the integration of tacit, explicit, indigenous, and local knowledge and practical problem-solving. It believes in experimentation and innovation through mixing theoretical knowledge with practical skills [7,9]. Moreover, LF refers to an environment, where learners are exposed to all learning support facilities in a dynamic way [10]. Some progressive researchers call LF “bringing industry to the classroom”.
The history of LF may not be exactly traced because, learning by doing, experimental learning, and field learning terms can be found in the teaching–learning history of humans since the inception of teaching, learning, and training processes, but formally this term was coined in 1994 [3,11,12]. Initially, Europeans defined a LF as a “learning environment where processes and technologies are based on a real industrial site, which allows a direct approach to the product creation process, focusing on the didactic concept and emphasizing experimental and problem-based learning [13].Moreover, according to Dlouhá et al. [14], LF needs the support of the latest technology, especially information technology (IT), which can help to create “learning networks” to address a wider audience and accommodate all kinds of knowledge workers and their skill, through formal, informal, and non-formal approaches to develop a “learning society” or/and a ”knowledge society [7,8,14,15].
According to the sustainable development goals (SDGs), one of the main focuses of education is sustainable development and the promotion of independent thinking among learners. Therefore, one of the major responsibilities of higher educational institutions (HEIs) around the globe is to open their doors to community inclusion and development [16,17]. (According to Baloch et al. [1] and Darun et al. [17] these goals can be easily achieved via a learning factory, which has convictions in the development of soft and technical skills among learners. Furthermore, according to the university business model, HEIs should be responsive to social needs, which can be accomplished through learning factories that combine tacit and explicit knowledge and skills [18,19].
From a contextual standpoint, due to the close links between industry and academia in Europe, manufacturing industries earn approximately a 21% share of the gross domestic product (GDP), which has been made possible by the strong links between academia and industry. Industries have sponsored living labs and learning factories in HEIs, which are promoting hands-on experiences among learners [19,20,21].
In contrast, upon looking at the manufacturing sector contribution of developing countries, such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia, its highest contribution remains constantly low, as depicted in Figure 1, which shows the contribution of GDP share of the manufacturing industry of Pakistan (highest 14.8%) in 2008, which again dropped to 12.1% in 2018, despite having major (65%) human assets (working population). The main reason: their inner and hidden potentials have not been self-actualized [21,22,23].
Likewise, education is not outcome-based in most Asian countries. In contrast to developed countries, when graduates enter industries in both soft and technical areas, they start from scratch [7]. Similarly, studies of [1,7] proclaimed that in most Asian countries, only 15% to 20% of educational content is applicable in the industry, and therefore, a dire need is felt to shift to competency-based education This study focused on exploring the following question: “What is the impact of the LF on sustainable educational and social development”.
Furthermore, LF is expected to promote competencies and skills beyond theoretical knowledge. Therefore, the study was initiated to cover the idea of LF from a historical and theoretical perspective. Moreover, the study assessed the outcomes of the learning factory’s contribution empirically to sustainable development. Furthermore, mixed methodology, (case study, data analysis, and systematic content analysis) was applied to comprehend the major aspects from a different perspective. In the same way, contextual collaboration was also discussed, including how LF can contribute to effective and sustainable educational development, followed by a conclusion and recommendations.

2. Methodology

The goal of this study is to find out how important LF is for educational growth in academic institutions. So, the study used a mix of methods to fully understand the thing that was being looked at. In the first phase, Scopus databases were used to conduct a Systematic Literature Review. The main constructs for the search were “Learning Factory”, “Learning Factory and Education development”, and “Learning Factory and sustainable development” in the titles of archived documents. The search included journal articles, conference papers, and research articles written in English. The study’s time frame was kept open so that the construct’s roots could be traced and its developmental phases could be tracked. Since Scopus does not have a category for educational studies to filter the results, a broader study area of social sciences was used. A total of 395 articles on 13 October 2022 were explored for bibliometrics analysis; however, results from additional searches via google scholar were also added for the support of a supplementary narrative literature review. Additionally, for the content analysis, 74 documents (articles, books, and proceedings) were included for review and comprehension.
Based on the SLR, themes were extracted, as presented in Table 1. However, a contextual gap was found in the literature; therefore, the study went into the interview processes with the experts and selected professors with different affiliations (from Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, and Sweden). These academicians were consulted, and their opinions were used to support the discussion of the literature findings. A case study from University Malaysia Pahang (UMP), Malaysia, was also included to better understand the phenomenon. UMP is among the top-ranked Malaysian technical universities and has been using LF in teaching–learning processes since 2015.

3. Results and Findings

3.1. Themes Extacted from the Content Analysis

During the review of the related literature, two main themes were identified, as given in Table 1. From the search through keywords, it was determined that the two main contributions of education should be social and technical development, which work as prerequisites for sustainable development.

3.2. Biblomatric Analysis

After thematic comprehension, the Scopus file was assessed for bibliometric overview. The findings revealed that, as shown in Figure 2, there has been an increasing rate of studies on the subject after 2017, even though the first paper published in the field was in 1982 and no publication was archived for a few years after that. Indonesia, the United States, and Germany were the top three countries with the most publications in this field, far outnumbering other countries, as shown in Figure 2.
Moreover, over time, 395 documents have referred to these works. Most of them are from the field of engineering, followed by the social sciences and computer sciences. Nonetheless, after a review of the literature by the authors, two main themes of social skills development and technical skills development were defined. Table 1 contains early findings about the themes. The network analysis using Vosviwer software also provides verifiable evidence of the two themes, as shown in Figure 3. Two clusters of keywords are identified, one related to social skills and the other to technical skills.

3.3. Historical Developent

Historically, looking at the roots of the LF, the first time it was used for the active solution of industrial problems was by the National Science Foundation (USA) in 1994. Because LF combines virtual and augmented realities, stimulated software, and prototyping tools to present a real-world environment to address an industrial or social problem, it aids in the understanding of abstract phenomena in a real, simulated form [25,26].
Furthermore, it provides learners with hands-on experiences and better insight, assisting them in grasping the difficulties in the best possible, feasible, viable, and technical way [27]. Therefore, increased industry–academia liaison demands the establishment of the LF in HEIs to cater to the concept of “teaching–learning without words” and transform HEIs into “development hubs” for sustainable social and technological development [28]. According to the manifestos of the United Nations Organization (UNO), eleven declarations analyzed by Lozano et al. [29], and the constitutions of every country and university, one major moral and ethical obligation is for such countries and institutions to open their doors to outreach facilitation, collaboration, operations, and research development. In its recent policy on educational development, UNO has specifically mentioned achieving global compact and sustainable development goals [30,31]. Similarly, the World Bank, (WB) in its Technical Education Quality Improvement Program (TEQIP), explains that technical education paves the road for micro development, at the unit level, and therefore remains indispensable for sustainable social development. It has advised governmental and non-governmental institutions to invest in technical education with state-of-the-art simulated learning facilities [32]. Besides the above-mentioned research calls, these declarations and reports also call for the establishment of learning factories for social development. It is more of a melting pot, with the foremost aim of priming the designers of the future to bring in multilayered transformations in terms of societal, organizational, technical, and business innovations to come up with solutions to the complex problems of the 21st century [33].
It is more evident from the literature that learning, exploration, and innovation have been optimal when people with diverse skills, backgrounds, disciplines, ages, and possessions have joined hands for the same goal [2,8]. Table 2 presents the summary of the studies conducted on different aspects of the learning factory.
After LF was thought of and put into action successfully at the National Science Foundation in 1994, acceptance and use of the idea grew very quickly. In 1995, different projects were sponsored by industrial partners 2000 with full mechanical and material support. The concept gained popularity and was appreciated; therefore, it was successful and won the Bernard M. Gordon Prize of the National Academy of Engineering for “Innovations in Engineering Education.” In the education sector, the first learning factory was established in Stuttgart, Germany, called the “Lernfabrik”, using computer-integrated manufacturing (CIM) typology. Soon after, the same typology was copied in the United States for teaching purposes and was dubbed “Teaching Factory” in order to facilitate teaching–learning processes in medical sciences by exposing students to real-world hospital experiences. These successful practices strengthen the concept, and, in Europe, universities and industries began establishing and implementing LF. The first Learning Factory of the wave, the Process Learning Factory (CIP) (Center for Industrial Productivity), opened in 2007 at the Institute of Production Management, Technology, and Machine Tools (PTW), TU Darmstadt. Now, LF has the capacity and capability to reshape the teaching–learning and research processes, as is evident from the Machine Learning Level (MRL 5–7) factories that are doing that without scale labs, such as LEGOs. Similarly, LF has bolstered the manufacturing process at the Center for Aeronautics (CFAA) in south Europe, transformed the manufacturing process, increased Technology Readiness Level (TRLs), and reduced the gap between student instruction and advanced research [39] Now, multi-stage and multi-purpose learning factories have been established around the globe and are operating under the philosophy of IR4.0.
In the third phase, conferences related to the LF concept started to make its application more comprehensive. In 2011, the first LF conference was arranged in Darmstadt. A group of European academic learning factory operators founded the Initiative on European Learning Factories (IELF), which was later renamed the International Association of Learning Factories under the presidentship of Prof. Eberhard Abele, to extend the services of the learning factory to the whole world. Similarly, another initiative on LF was the Collaborative Working Group (CWG), who, in 2017, decided to open worldwide membership initiatives, which gave birth to the “International Association of Learning Factories” (IALF). Nowadays, the LF is not limited to the engineering and biological sciences but has equal application in theoretical and theological sciences. Figure 4 shows the historical development process of the learning factory.

3.4. Theoretical Perspective of the Learning Factory

Higher education institutions’ (HEIs) aim is to contribute proactively to social development through research and innovations [10]. This process can be a multiplier in achieving their objectives if the communities are involved. Because research and innovation processes involve local tacit and indigenous knowledge, practices, and experiences, they manifest the learning, innovation, and developmental processes [17,40]. For this reason, i.e., the inclusion of indigenous knowledge, Helga Nowotny and Michael Gibbons presented two scientific alternation modes, which were named mode 1 and mode 2, respectively [41].
According to these modes, HEIs have to change their working, learning, and development perspectives to accommodate knowledge stakeholders and contribute holistically to sustainable social development. In Mode 1, knowledge exploration has been the main concern of academia. This model was criticized for not involving all stakeholders in the knowledge and learning process, and the research and development process was limited only to the doors of HEIs. Similarly, there was another model, named the First Public Education Model, which was later named the Deficit Model, which focused only on the “learned people” of the society, and had deficiencies with respect to accommodate the “laymen” of the society in learning and development processes [39,40,41].
Due to this deficiency, this model was named the Deficit Model and criticized for lacking the concepts of learning by doing and learning through interaction.
In contrast to these models, mode-2 was appreciated for accommodating heterogeneous learning and development processes, whose implementation needs to be conducted via collaborative learning networks by different stakeholders (HEIs, NGOs, civil society, and industry). According to Cada and Ptácková [28] mode 2 is more responsive to socioeconomic development, is best suited for exploring and developing indigenous and tacit knowledge, and can be the best forum for implementing LF in HEIs. In contrast to the Deficit Model, the Public Debate Model was presented, which values individual knowledge and sub-categorizes it according to its specialties for sustainable development through the collaboration of scientists and tacit-knowledge workers in society [41,42].
Furthermore, the co-production of the knowledge model broadens the venues for collaboration between scientists and local knowledge workers through active participation and empowerment, providing knowledge workers with new directions and philosophies for sustainable development. In parallel, this model believes that both aspects of learning development and knowledge exploration need to be considered, whether that be “contributive expertise,” which adds to the body of knowledge and furthers development, or “interactional expertise,” which benefits from the experiences of knowledge workers [32,41]. In the same way, stakeholder theory demands that the university is supposed to respond to social needs proactively. Universities are responsible for assessing, mapping, and satisfying social needs, and they are accountable for designing their curriculum, vision, mission, and strategic goals accordingly [43,44]. A study by Chryssolouris et al. [34] supported sociocognitive theory by stating that stakeholder interactions can be the most effective way to assess and provide for needs.
Similarly, if we focus on the critical theory of learning by doing and learning by interaction, this also encourages adults to pursue lifelong learning. According to Brookfield [16] learning opportunities can be devised through LF, which might create hegemony, commitment, and enthusiasm. Self-directed learning is encouraged among adults, which further promotes “instrumental learning”, covering technical and industrial aspects of the LF, and “dialogic learning”, which encompasses soft and social aspects of sustainable development among knowledge workers such as help, harmony, peace, and sympathy while communicating “what is needed”, “when”, “how” and “how much” [45].
Likewise, “self-reflective learning” might help in exploring all the hidden and inner capacities of the learners, helping them in socialization and bringing them to the self-actualization stage. These are the pre-requisites of sustainable social, emotional, and psychological development, which might be implemented best via inclusive LF in HEIs [33,39,45].
Experiential learning theory, organizational theory, new institutional theory, sociocognitive theory, and computational theory all support the idea of a Learning Factory because they all focus on learning by doing, active ideation, and experimenting. All these theories state that learning becomes mature when it comes through experiences, exposure, and stimulation [9,32,46]. Abstract ideas are converted into concrete knowledge when the knowledge worker and their processes are exposed to several external stimuli [42]. These theories talk about field tours, workshops, seminars, webinars, conferences, and even social lounge talks, which are the main concern of the LF [47,48]. As shown in Figure 5, the majority of the papers took a practical approach and discussed very little theory. However, the experiential theory is the most cited one (35%) among the Learning Factory literature, followed by organizational (20%) and sociocognitive theories of learning (18%).
Furthermore, looking at the psychological aspects of the learning schools, behaviorists believe that learning is affected by the consequences of the process/output/outcome and best occurs through classic conditioning, operant conditioning, and the modeling of learner’s behaviors [2,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36]. In contrast to behaviorism, cognitivism and computationalism believe that learning is a thought process that involves the conversion of abstract ideas into concrete experiments [15,33]. This phenomenon is also supported by Kolb’s learning cycle, where cognition gives birth to certain behaviors that can be mapped and stimulated through learning factories in HEIs and industries. Constructivists or objectivists maintain the stances of behaviorism and cognitivism, arguing that learning needs both internal stimuli and external environment/exposure [15,49]. Likewise, from a philosophical perspective, learning emerges through error and trial. Epistemology works on the validation of knowledge through subjectivism and objectivism [34]. Subjectivism demands the development of the best processes and the elimination of possible and suspected obstacles to efficient performance at the micro-level through man–man and man–machine symbolic interactionism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In the same way, objectivism believes in the development of quantifiable new skills, methods, and strategies to achieve targets [23,38,43].
Moreover, ontological perspectives of learning development [36]. believe that the learner should have a stronger relationship with the outside world. Moreover, sociological views of learning development say that people learn new things when they actively interact with and respond to different stimuli [44]. All these modes, models, and theories suggest that HEIs should strive for the active interaction of scientists and tacit (indigenous) knowledge workers. Tacit knowledge combined with a mix of scientific techniques for delivering the best possible, feasible, optimal, and technical results helps in exploring new avenues of learning and sets the pace for the process of sustainable scientific development. According to Azadivar and Kramer [9] and Burger et al. [22], 65% of knowledge has been graded as tacit knowledge, which social scientists need to decode for the social, psychological, and emotional sustainable development of society. This can be fulfilled in the form of LF, where close collaboration among local knowledge workers and scientists can be amalgamated.

3.5. Comparison of the Skill Level of the Graduates

Comparing the skill and experience levels of the graduates produced in developed and developing countries clearly indicates that graduates of technologically developed countries have a better skill set compared to that of the locally produced graduates [1]. Similarly, the findings of the industrial sectors show that graduates of industrially developed countries are more efficient as compared to non-developed ones, due to their strong industrial linkages, tours, and industrial visits [22,50]. (Moreover, the data obtained from nineteen (19) students, presented in Figure 6, confirmed that learning factories have a greater (58%) and longer-term impact on learning performance compared to all other traditional and scientific teaching and learning methods and styles. These practices and their results proclaim that the learning factory has become a necessity or a prerequisite for the learner and industry to equip them with the best social and industrial knowledge, skills, and experiences.

3.6. Case Study of LF at UMP, Malaysia

The post-1980s Malaysian government’s major reforms in the country resulting in economic growth and rapid industrialization in the country have left the country facing the challenge of a major shortage of skilled manpower to work in the industries, banking sector, agriculture, construction, and IT and telecommunication sectors. There was a disparity between the qualification of manpower and industry requirements, so the education sector played a major role in producing qualified graduates ready to work in the industry [48].The higher learning institutions focused on the creative, communication, and management skills of the students by involving the industry, and based on market demand, the soft skills of the students have improved. These major steps were taken by the government to tackle unemployment, produce more skilled workers ready to work in the industry, and reduce dependency on foreign workers. Therefore, the government has established a “learning factory” where close collaboration has developed among the higher learning institutions in the country with the industry locally and in overseas countries such as Japan, Korea, Germany, and other western countries [48,51]. The universities provided practical training and internship programs; additionally, international universities were involved in this program, where the student will be sent abroad for further learning and to gain international exposure in the industry; as a result, Malaysia was able to produce more skilled employees in a short period of time, making it the most popular country in Asia [51].
Though many Malaysian governments and private sector universities have a history of successful implementation of the Learning Factory, such as Tenga Nasional Universiti (National Energy University), which has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Malaysian electrical and electronic sector industry to produce more skilled IT and electrical and electronic engineers, and Multimedia University (MMU), which is closely linked with the telecommunications sector, and Universiti Sains Malaysia, at University Malaysia Pahang (UMP) Malaysia, a Learning Factory has been established, and partnerships have been developed among partners such as the ESB Business School of Reutlingen University of Applied Science (RU), the Department of Industrial Engineering of Stellenbosch University (SUN), the Purdue Polytechnic Institute of Purdue University, and the UMP Malaysia. They have offered a Master of Science program in Digital Industrial Management and Engineering (DIME). All partners contribute according to their specialties. RU is specializing in digital industrial engineering, SUN is investigating supply chain management and digital twins, Purdue is applying itself to robotics, sensors, and smart automation, and UMP is spotlighting data analytics and distributed ledger technologies. With this broader range of specialties with a common goal, learners can choose the best option based on their interests, under the supervision of experts, to develop disciplinary and cross-disciplinary knowledge and applied research skills required for addressing the industry’s complex challenges [20,51]. Similarly, a mechanism for vertical and horizontal collaboration has been developed among faculty members to enhance their research constructs and skills in the same and cross-discipline areas, respectively. This strategic collaboration has been taken as a pilot project that will be extended to other social and theological partnerships based on future needs. Furthermore, this collaboration has paved the road for IR 4.0, with less investment and greater future engagement.

3.7. Thematic Analysis of the Interview

Table 3 shows the demographic profile of the respondents. Ethical consent was taken verbally, and the purpose of the interview has been explained. A total of 12 highly qualified professionals were approached for the face-to-face interview in Pakistan. Five participants agreed to the interview conducted by J.A.T. and took notes. The demographics of the participants from Pakistan are tabulated as Group 1, with three male and two female participants having answered the research questions. In China, an interview was conducted by S. P. as the five respondents were approached; however, only four volunteered for the interview. Two males and two females participated and were subdivided into Group 2. In Group 3, the interview was conducted by Z.J. and three respondents from Malaysia volunteered for the interview. Two males and one female participated in the face-to-face interview.
The very simple, open-ended question of “how learning factories can contribute to educational and sustainable development?” was asked.

3.7.1. The Thematic Analysis of the Responses from P1.1–5

“Though it appears to be a novel concept to us, learning factories are a 21st-century requirement for gaining hands-on experience in education for long-term educational and social development” (P1.1–5) Pakistan is way behind in the implementation of learning factories in education. There is a lack of interest from the government and private sector. However, the establishment of the LF is required to provide learners with hands-on experiences and skills, as well as to make them well-versed in technical and soft skills. If we do not, we may not be able to compete with the rest of the world. “West has implemented this concept, therefore, they are advancing in educational settings” (P. 1–5). Further, they added, around the globe, technical organizations such as companies and industries only welcome skilled graduates. Therefore, it is necessary to implement LF for the attainment of social, economic, and technical development.

3.7.2. The Thematic Analysis of the Responses from P2.1–4

“China is largely investing in the establishment of mini, micro, and large-scale learning factories to harness not only industrial manufacturing processes but also agricultural and other sectors at the same pace because learning factories have the capacity and capability to develop holistic and inclusive analytical skills as well as leadership skills among learners with different interests and skill sets”. Moreover, they said very clearly that “vertical and horizontal collaboration to develop disciplinary and cross-disciplinary research and development opportunities for learners can be achieved if we give them a supportive environment, and we can do that by setting up learning factories.” Similarly, industrialists responded, “We are planning for close and active collaboration for the establishment of learning factories within HEIs, as well as welcoming graduates to visit our living-labs for skill-based vocational knowledge.” Moreover, they have designed internships with financial support to bring interested graduates on board for the said purpose. However, all these were conducted on an individual organizational basis, and they demanded a structured policy under the direction and guidance of regulatory authorities. They also trusted the learning factory because the idea had already been tested and used in another country. This meant that there was less risk and more technical support. They felt a dire need among the top tier to develop a policy plan for its smoother implementation. The respondents from Malaysia (P3, 1–3) answered, “The Malaysian government and education ministry have put in effort to tackle the unemployment in the country, but this is only possible if the distance between the higher education institutions and industry is narrowed down, so the students have more opportunities to skill themselves and prepare for the market, and therefore the successful model of factor learning is adopted among the higher education institutions.” All individuals must complete a minimum of six months of industry training during their study period and will only be awarded a degree or certificate if they do so. They emphasized that “collaboration between higher learning institutions and the industrial market is fundamentally important,” and that “the education ministry is playing a critical role in bringing more industries to higher learning and closing the gap”.
Most of the respondents demanded the incorporation of information technology (IT) based tools such as artificial intelligence (AI), decision support system (DSS), and big data analytics for the codification of tacit and indigenous knowledge. According to their stances, “IT has developed the capacity to codify tacit and indigenous knowledge, which can be later modified, preserved (stored), and shared among the knowledge workers for sustainable social and economic development. They added further that learning organizations like HEIs, can implement these systems very easily as they already have trust, support, capability, and capacity”. (P.3.1–3)
Moreover, this study found that effective management of collective creativity is essential for holistic sustainable development. Therefore, the leadership of the HEIs is supposed to ensure that all stakeholders should actively collaborate, which is possible if the HEIs truly incorporate the university business model and work on the scientific alteration model. Furthermore, the findings of this study proclaim that this moral engagement of all knowledge seekers will lead to joint research collaborations which can bolster developmental processes. Besides this, a collaboration between the formal degree holders and the tacit knowledge seekers will accelerate the process of socialization, normalization, and harmonization of the social engagement processes. It will also improve the feedback processes, which will further lead to the emotional engagement of the stakeholders in the developmental processes and reduce grievances and disengagements in society.

3.8. Discussion: Collaboration and Establishment of LF in HEIs

While forming a “knowledge society”, “learning society”, “information society”, and/or “networked knowledge society” using the “teaching-without-words” approach, LF might play a vital role [2,31]. LF maintains the capacity for information acquisition, storage, sharing, and dissemination coherently, in both centralized and decentralized ways [10]. To achieve this objective, HEIs can launch formal, informal, and non-formal learning activities via LF. Central repositories in the LF in a distributed way can assemble learners, institutions, and learning sources in a mutually connected and organized way for effective inter- and intra-disciplinary domains. This will generate new information flows, new opportunities, new structures, and open new interfaces among science, technology, society, and environment, which will promote “radical innovations”, and “regional sustainability initiatives”, establish relationships beyond academic boundaries, stress information exchange, trust, network cooperation, communication, and skills to identify problems and solutions [48].
HEIs as an “information hub” for learners can be the best place for collaboration and sharing tacit (indigenous) knowledge. HEIs maintain high inclusive potentials and public impact which might help develop a “learning network”, using the LF platform [14,52]., Collaboration among HEIs and communities attempts to connect critical theory with learning by doing and learning by interacting, thus contributing to a deeper level of learning due not only to the combination of theoretical and practical knowledge but also contributing to the social, emotional, ethical, and psychological well-being of the knowledge workers. These practices will pave the way for long-term development, particularly in developing countries where local knowledge can be supplemented and collaborated with scientific knowledge [47,48].

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

The result from the SLR shows that there is high demand and a requirement to increase the link between the industry and academia for the successful establishment of learning factors to cater to the concept of “teaching–learning without words” and transform HEIs into “development hubs” for sustainable social and technological development [14]. According to the manifestos of the United Nations Organization (UNO), eleven declarations analyzed by Lozano et al. [29], and the constitutions of every country and university, one major moral and ethical obligation is to open their doors for outreach facilitation, collaboration, operations, and research development. In its recent policy on educational development, UNO has specifically mentioned achieving global compact and sustainable development goals [30,31]. Similarly, the World Bank (WB) in its Technical Education Quality Improvement Program (TEQIP) explains that technical education paves the way for micro development at the unit level and, therefore, remains indispensable for sustainable social development. It has advised governmental and non-governmental institutions to invest in technical education with state-of-the-art simulated learning facilities [32]. LF maintains the capacity of information acquisition, storage, sharing, and dissemination coherently, in both centralized and decentralized ways. HEIs can launch formal, informal, and non-formal learning activities via LF. Central repositories in the LF, in a distributed way, can assemble learners, institutions, and learning sources in a mutually connected and organized way for effective inter- and intra-disciplinary domains. This study also focused on the case study of a learning factory, taking an example from the Malaysian University of Pahang, which is a role model for other higher learning institutions and actively coordinates among the universities and other industries. Lastly, face-to-face interviews were conducted in multiple countries to understand the importance of the LR from the expert point of view, where most of the respondents demanded the incorporation of information technology (IT)-based tools such as artificial intelligence (AI), decision-support systems (DSS), and big data analytics for the codification of the tacit and indigenous knowledge.
Learning Factories have the capacity and capability to reshape the teaching–learning and research processes. LF provides a platform for hands-on experience opportunities for knowledge workers and learners to explore their inner and hidden capabilities. They can be used for technological and theological subjects, to bolster arts, drama, and other aspects of economic, psychological, emotional, and social development. Current learning factories carry certain limitations, which need to be overcome in future LF implementations. First, LF is designed with more abstraction at a high conceptual level, where the main focus remains “authentic mapping/learning” for qualified engineers via simulated software, augmented and virtual realities, and very little concentration for middle or low-layer knowledge workers, which may deviate from the main theme of LF of competency development. Secondly, a systematic LF approach/framework is needed for the establishment of LF to reduce uncertain piloting situations with large pioneering efforts. Similarly, courses lacking precise targets need to be oriented to fully utilize LF for said purpose.
Prior research claims that university and educational processes were restricted to a small group of people and specific locations. Based on a review of what has already been written, this study comes to the conclusion that learning cannot be limited to a small group of stakeholders and argues that it needs more global perspectives. The content analysis of the study also emphasizes the importance of tacit knowledge codification. This is because some forms of knowledge are inherently indigenous, local, and tacit; without exploring them, it may be impossible to provide optimally holistic, dynamic, and robust solutions, and a LF can help with inter- and cross-disciplinary innovation, ideation, and development. So, it is up to the academic leadership, along with policymakers and government officials, to create an environment where knowledge workers can reach their full personal, professional, and social potential. This study adds to the growing body of literature and research on knowledge management and, more specifically, knowledge sharing in education, especially higher education. It shows that this is not just something that happens in the business world. So, this study has added to the knowledge management literature by identifying and studying intra-organizational knowledge-related behavior. This is important because most of the existing research on knowledge-related behavior focuses on positive forms, such as sharing knowledge, and ignores tacit and indigenous forms, as well as skill acquisition. Academics should be more open to incorporating more than one model or theory into practical contexts. This will also speed up research processes because the application of one model or theory may not fully explore the underlying phenomenon and may encounter certain limitations in obtaining complete comprehension.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.A.T.; methodology, Z.J. software, J.A.T.; validation, S.L.; formal analysis, J.R.-S. and S.L.; investigation, J.A.T.; resources, Z.J.; data curation J.A.T. and Z.J.; writing draft preparation, J.A.T. and S.L.; writing—review and editing, J.R.-S. and Z.J.; supervision and project administration J.A.T. and Z.J. Authors are willing to publish this manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Youth Project of Hubei Normal University: Research on the realization path and evaluation of the effect of double-fusion teaching model in primary and secondary schools in the post-epidemic era (Project no: HS2020QN003); Teaching Reform on Ideological and Political Education Project of Hubei Normal University: Research on the Design and Practice of Ideological and Political Education in College English Courses Based on ADDIE Model (Project no: KCSZY202149).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Baloch, N.; Siming, L.; Abraha, A.; Hong, S. Faculty research productivity: Differences between foreign and local doctoral degree holders in Pakistan. High. Educ. 2020, 82, 203–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Centea, D.; Elbestawi, M.; Singh, I.; Wanyama, T. SEPT Learning Factory Framework. In Smart Industry & Smart Education; Auer, M., Langmann, R., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Swizerland, 2019; pp. 354–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wagner, P.; Prinz, C.; Wannöffel, M.; Kreimeier, D. Learning Factory for Management, Organization and Workers’ Participation. Procedia CIRP 2015, 32, 115–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Ali, M.; Ullah, S.; Ahmad, M.S.; Cheok, M.Y.; Alenezi, H. Assessing the impact of green consumption behavior and green purchase intention among Millennials Toward Sustainable Environment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 30, 23335–23347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ahmad, M.; Turi, J.A.; Al-Dala’ie, R.N.S.; Manan, A. Potential use of recycled materials on rooftops to improve thermal comfort in sustainable building construction projects. Front. Built Environ. 2022, 235, 1014473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Al-Hussaini, S.H.; Turi, J.A.; Altamimi, A.N.A.; Khan, M.A.; Ahmad, M. Impact of talent management strategies on employee performance behaviour with the mediating role of talent management outputs. Arch. Bus. Res. 2019, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Qinhua, Z.; Dongming, M.; Zhiying, N.; Hao, X. Origin and overview of the adult “Lifelong learning competency” research program in Beijing. In Adult Competencies for Lifelong Learning; River Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tisch, M.; Hertle, C.; Abele, E.; Metternich, J.; Tenberg, R. Learning factory design: A competency-oriented approach integrating three design levels. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2015, 29, 1355–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Azadivar, F.; Kramer, B. Rewards and Challenges of Utilizing University Research/Economic Development Centers for Enhancing Engineering Education; Annual Conference & Exposition; American Society for Engineering Education: Washington, DC, USA, 2007; Volume 1154. [Google Scholar]
  10. Enke, J.; Metternich, J.; Bentz, D.; Klaes, P.-J. Systematic learning factory improvement based on maturity level assessment. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 23, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tısch, M.; Ranz, F.; Abele, E.; Metternıch, J.; Vera, H. Learning Factory Morphology—Study of Form and Structure of An Innovative Learning Approach in the Manufacturing Domain. Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol. 2015, 14, 356–364. Available online: https://d-nb.info/1129262421/34 (accessed on 1 February 2023).
  12. Lamancusa, J.S.; Jorgensen, J.E.; Zayas-Castro, J.L. The Learning Factory-A New Approach to Integrating Design and Manufacturing into the Engineering Curriculum. J. Eng. Educ. 1997, 86, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Leal, L.F.; Fleury, A.; Zancul, E. Starting up a Learning Factory focused on Industry 4.0. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 45, 436–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dlouhá, J.; Macháčková-Henderson, L.; Dlouhý, J. Learning networks with involvement of higher education institutions. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 49, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Abele, E.; Chryssolouris, G.; Sihn, W.; Metternich, J.; ElMaraghy, H.; Seliger, G.; Sivard, G.; ElMaraghy, W.; Hummel, V.; Tisch, M.; et al. Learning factories for future oriented research and education in manufacturing. CIRP Ann. 2017, 66, 803–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Brookfield, S. Adult learning: An overview. Int. Encycl. Educ. 1995, 10, 375–380. [Google Scholar]
  17. Darun, M.; Palm, D.; Athinarayanan, R.; Hummel, V.; von Leipzig, K. The Learning Factory—A New Stimulus to Enhance International Collaboration. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 31, 290–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Toheed, H.; Turi, J.A.; Ramay, M.I. Exploring the Consequences of Organizational Cynicism. Int. J. Eur. Stud. 2019, 3, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ahamd, M. State of the Art Compendium of Macro and Micro Energies. Adv. Sci. Technol. Res. J. 2019, 13, 88–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alfahad, B.S.M.; Alabdullah, S.F.I.; Ahmad, M. Investigation of the Critical Factors Influencing Low-Cost Green Sustainable Housing Projects in Iraq. Math. Stat. Eng. Appl. 2022, 71, 310–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bashir, S.; Khwaja, M.G.; Rashid, Y.; Turi, J.A.; Waheed, T. Green Brand Benefits and Brand Outcomes: The Mediating Role of Green Brand Image. SAGE Open 2020, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Burger, K.; Pitts, H.; Risk, J. Understanding Productivity Practices; University of Bristol: Bristol, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  23. Cachay, J.; Wennemer, J.; Abele, E.; Tenberg, R. Study on Action-Oriented Learning with a Learning Factory Approach. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 55, 1144–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Pakistan Business council. Available online: https://www.pbc.org.pk/research/pakistans-economic-trade-manufacturing-data/ (accessed on 1 February 2023).
  25. Tisch, M.; Metternich, J. Potentials and Limits of Learning Factories in Research, Innovation Transfer, Education, and Training. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 9, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhang, W.; Cai, W.; Min, J.; Fleischer, J.; Ehrmann, C.; Prinz, C.; Kreimeier, D. 5G and AI Technology Application in the AMTC Learning Factory. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 45, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lanza, G.; Minges, S.; Stoll, J.; Moser, E.; Haefner, B. Integrated and Modular Didactic and Methodological Concept for a Learning Factory. Procedia CIRP 2016, 54, 136–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Čada, K.; Ptáčková, K. Possibilities and limits of collaboration between science and NGOs in the Czech Republic. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 49, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lozano, R. The state of sustainability reporting in universities. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2011, 12, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rasche, A. The United Nations Global Compact and the Sustainable Development Goals. In Research Handbook of Responsible Management; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2020; pp. 228–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Doner, R.; Schneider, B.R. Technical Education in the Middle-Income Trap: Building Coalitions for Skill Formation. J. Dev. Stud. 2019, 56, 680–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dubey, A.; Mehndiratta, A.; Sagar, M.; Kashiramka, S. Reforms in technical education sector: Evidence from World Bank-assisted Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme in India. High. Educ. 2018, 78, 273–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lamancusa, J.S.; Zayas, J.L.; Soyster, A.L.; Morell, L.; Jorgensen, J. 2006 Bernard M. Gordon Prize Lecture*: The Learning Factory: Industry-Partnered Active Learning. J. Eng. Educ. 2008, 97, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chryssolouris, G.; Mavrikios, D.; Mourtzis, D. Manufacturing Systems: Skills & Competencies for the Future. Procedia CIRP 2013, 7, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Zuehlke, D. SmartFactory—From Vision to Reality in Factory Technologies. IFAC Proc. Vol. 2008, 41, 14101–14108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Jaeger, A.; Mayrhofer, W.; Kuhlang, P.; Matyas, K.; Sihn, W. The “Learning Factory”: An immersive learning environment for comprehensive and lasting education in industrial engineering. In Proceedings of the 16th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, Orlando, FL, USA, 17–20 July 2012; Volume 16, pp. 237–242. [Google Scholar]
  37. Morell, L.; Trucco, M. A proven model to re-engineer engineering education in partnership with industry. In Proceedings of the World Engineering Education Forum, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 13 March 2012. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hulla, M.; Karre, H.; Hammer, M.; Ramsauer, C. A Teaching Concept Towards Digitalization at the LEAD Factory of Graz University of Technology. In The Challenges of the Digital Transformation in Education: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL2018); Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; Volume 2, pp. 393–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pinilla, L.S.; Rodríguez, R.L.; Gandarias, N.T.; de Lacalle, L.N.L.; Farokhad, M.R. TRLs 5–7 Advanced Manufacturing Centres, Practical Model to Boost Technology Transfer in Manufacturing. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Louw, L.; Droomer, M. Development of a low cost machine vision based quality control system for a learning factory. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 31, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. ElMaraghy, H.; Moussa, M.; ElMaraghy, W.; Abbas, M. Integrated Product / System Design and Planning for New Product Family in a Changeable Learning Factory. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 9, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jooste, J.L.; Louw, L.; von Leipzig, K.; Conradie, P.D.; Asekun, O.O.; Lucke, D.; Hagedorn-Hansen, D. Teaching maintenance plan development in a learning factory environment. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 45, 379–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Faria, J.A.; Nóvoa, H. Digital transformation at the University of Porto. In Exploring Services Science; Za, S., Drăgoicea, M., Cavallari, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Swizerland, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jones, T.M.; Wicks, A.C.; Freeman, R.E. Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. In The Blackwell Guide to Business Ethics; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 17–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schallock, B.; Rybski, C.; Jochem, R.; Kohl, H. Learning Factory for Industry 4.0 to provide future skills beyond technical training. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 23, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rosak-Szyrocka, J.; Apostu, S.A.; Turi, J.A.; Tanveer, A. University 4.0 Sustainable Development in the Way of Society 5.0. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sadaj, E.A.; Hulla, M.; Ramsauer, C. Design Approach for a Learning Factory to train Services. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 45, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tan, H.-S.; Ivander; Oktarina, R.; Reynaldo, V.; Sharina, C. Conceptual development of learning factory for industrial engineering education in Indonesia context as an enabler of students’ competencies in industry 4.0 era. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 426, 012123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zull, J.E. The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching Teaching by Exploring the Biology of Learning; Stylus Publication: Sterling, VA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  50. Konstantinova, S.; Konarev, A. Total Factor Productivity and Intangible Assets of Industrial Companies. In Economic Science, Education and the Real Economy: Development and Interactions in the Digital Age, Proceedings of the Jubilee International Scientific Conference Dedicated to the 100th Anniversary of the University of Economics, Varna, Bulgaria, 11–12 May 2020; University of Economics: Varna, Bulgaria; pp. 381–390.
  51. Maarof, M.G.; Nawanir, G.; Yusuf, M.F. Learning Factory Concept and Development at Faculty of Industrial Management, Universiti Malaysia Pahang. KnE Soc. Sci. 2019, 627–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lindvig, K.; Mathiasen, H. Translating the Learning Factory model to a Danish Vocational Education Setting. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 45, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 05376 g001 550
Figure 1. Share of Manufacturing Sector in the GDP (%) [24].
Figure 1. Share of Manufacturing Sector in the GDP (%) [24].
Sustainability 15 05376 g001
Sustainability 15 05376 g002 550
Figure 2. Documents published on the learning/teaching Factory.
Figure 2. Documents published on the learning/teaching Factory.
Sustainability 15 05376 g002
Sustainability 15 05376 g003 550
Figure 3. Keyword map.
Figure 3. Keyword map.
Sustainability 15 05376 g003
Sustainability 15 05376 g004 550
Figure 4. Historical evidence of LF acceptance and implementation [25].
Figure 4. Historical evidence of LF acceptance and implementation [25].
Sustainability 15 05376 g004
Sustainability 15 05376 g005 550
Figure 5. Citation of the learning theories for Learning Factory.
Figure 5. Citation of the learning theories for Learning Factory.
Sustainability 15 05376 g005
Sustainability 15 05376 g006 550
Figure 6. Comparison of the teaching–learning styles.
Figure 6. Comparison of the teaching–learning styles.
Sustainability 15 05376 g006
Table
Table 1. Social and technical skills themes.
Table 1. Social and technical skills themes.
s. NoThemes
1Social development, i.e., independent thinking, ideation and innovation, assimilation and accommodation, and psychological development
2Technical development, i.e., sustained development, concrete learning, and development, abstract learning
Table
Table 2. Studies on different aspects of the Learning Factory.
Table 2. Studies on different aspects of the Learning Factory.
ReferenceChallenges, Lesson Learned, and ModelsMain Findings
Chryssolouris et al. [34] People are a strategic asset for manufacturing success
Collaboration of industry and academia		Discussed the importance of teaching factory for students, faculty, and industry
Azadivar and Kramer [9] Designing and developing new solutions for industrial clients
Hands-on real engineering practice		The Advanced Manufacturing Institute (AMI) at Kansas State University (KSU) has a facility in the industrial part to facilitate teaching factory
Zuehlke [35]Modifiable and expandable (flexible),
Networked (links any number of components from different suppliers),
Self-organizing (the independent execution of contextual tasks by components)
The user-friendliness of the systems (user-oriented).		Highlighted The Technical University of Kaiserslautern model for the “Intelligent Industrial Plant” of the future
Lamancusa et al. [12] The industry as a Partner
Active Learning
Appropriate Facilities to Stimulate Learning
Support and Resources		The lessons learned from the experiences of learning Factories at three large US Universities namely PSU, UPRM, and UW
Jaeger et al. [36]Interactive
Hands-on education and
Develop methods and tools		Learning and Innovation Factory (LIF) for Integrative Production Education at Vienna University of Technology, for the students and industrial workers
Morell and Trucco [37] Leadership
industry as partner
Appropriate Environment to Stimulate Learning
Outcomes Assessment and Faculty Buy-In, Support and Resources		Highlighted the challenges in curriculum and adaption
Cachay and Wennemer [23]Research on the topic of learning factories
Research on various topics in the area of Lean Production		The Process Learning Factory CIP at TU Darmstadt is used for research in two different ways
Chryssolouris et al. [34]Precision machining enterprise (producing car parts for GM, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and their suppliers)
State-of-the-art educational technology (such as distance learning, online courses, and time-tested tutoring, mentoring, and lectures)		Emphasized on teaching factory that provides students with the integration of learning experiences into a contextual setting to inculcate competency and effective application in students
Doner and Schneider [31]Factory-to-classroom
Curriculum/study content
Delivery mechanism
ICT technology		Discussed the four basic elements for a model of the Teaching Factory concept
Hulla et al. [38]Personal competencies
Social/interpersonal competencies
Methodical/domain-related competencies
Action related competencies		Discussed the action set to develop competencies and the learning factory named LEAD Factory of Graz University of Technology
Table
Table 3. Demographics of respondents in focus group interviews.
Table 3. Demographics of respondents in focus group interviews.
GroupAgeGenderCountryHighest QualificationDiscipline
P1.136MalePakistanPhDProject Management
P1.239FemalePakistanMasterEducation
P1.329FemalePakistanMasterMathematics
P1.440MalePakistanBachelorBusiness management
P1.547MalePakistanPhDMarketing
P2.133FemaleChinaPhDEducation
P2.239MaleChinaPhDSociology
P2.328FemaleChinaMasterEnglish Language
P2.445MaleChinaMasterCivil Engineering
P3.130FemaleMalaysiaBachelorReal Estate
P3.248MaleMalaysiaPhDIndustrial Management
P3.340MaleMalaysiaPhDComputer/IT
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jing, Z.; Turi, J.A.; Lu, S.; Rosak-Szyrocka, J. Sustainability through Factory-Based Learning in Higher Education. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5376. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065376

AMA Style

Jing Z, Turi JA, Lu S, Rosak-Szyrocka J. Sustainability through Factory-Based Learning in Higher Education. Sustainability. 2023; 15(6):5376. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065376

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jing, Zhao, Jamshid Ali Turi, Song Lu, and Joanna Rosak-Szyrocka. 2023. "Sustainability through Factory-Based Learning in Higher Education" Sustainability 15, no. 6: 5376. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065376

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop