This research analyses hackathons which are collaborative innovation making by using technology events, in terms of using these as a tool to facilitate a lifelong learning process in obtaining digital competence among other 21 st century skills. The aim of this research is to explore and analyse the perceptions and experiences of hackathon participants and different stakeholders about the learning process experienced during a hackathon event. The following research questions are studied: RQ1. How do interviewees perceive hackathons in relation to key elements of the UNESCO Learning Cities Framework?; RQ2. How do participants of the hackathons perceive their learning process?; RQ3. How do participants of the hackathons perceive their learning process by using digital tools during the hackathon events? Kolb’s experiential learning theory and UNESCO Learning Cities Framework are used as the ground for the theoretical-methodological frameworks. The methods chosen to collect the data are survey questionnaire and interviews. The results provide insights that apart from developing digital competence and using technology as a tool for learning, collaboration, communication and problem-solving are the main skills practiced during a hackathon. This implies that hackathons could be used on a wider scale to help with UNESCO Learning Cities development by facilitating the learning process for adults in the development of 21 st century skills. / <p>This article was presented in May 2020 at Stockholm University, Department of Education.</p><p>This finalized article was presented to UNESCO Learning Cities Program Specialist at the Institute of Lifelong Learning in Hamburg, in July 2020.</p><p>Key findings of this research were presented at the Joint International Seminar with Stockholm University, University of Tokyo and Jyväskuylä University in February 2020.</p><p>Interviews with this article's author about this research:</p><p>By Future Position X, digital innovation hub in Sweden (available in English &amp; Swedish): https://fpx.se/en/people-come-to-learn-network-and-make-a-difference/</p><p>Canberra Innovation Network mentions my research: https://cbrin.com.au/women-in-innovation/women-in-innovation-monika-lionaite/?fbclid=IwAR1mTBwXI8yS9uxkoTZSdhnB2jhpKA4kRs_GztyrAqCmbAJNNZ_KH0DR_Jo</p><p>Presentations about this research were done by the author at the Rotary Clubs of Canberra Sundowners and Canberra Weston Creek, also at the international conference of Rotary International activities during the global pandemic.</p><p>The author shared key findings as a speaker at the international conference promoting tolerance and peace on the topic 'Crisis and the role of states in developing solutions' November 2020 which was organized by the American International Education Federation and Alliance for Humanity; at the international online conference of Young Scientists on the topic of 'Leadership in peace-building and international development in the digital age' in November 2020 which was organized by Western Asian Development Institute.</p><p></p><p></p>

This research involves understanding the civic learning that emerged from the ways individuals in two civic action groups, Greenhill Historical Society (GHS) in Bonnybridge, a deindustrialised location, and Cumbernauld Village Action for the Community (CVAC) in Cumbernauld Village, a Conservation Area, enacted their citizenship through the spatial (geographical) and temporal (historical) characteristics of their place. I use a citizenship-as-practice conceptualisation, where citizenship is not a status ‘given’ to individuals who have successfully displayed pre-requisite outcomes, but is a continuous and indeterminate practice through exposure to real challenges. To understand the learning occurring for, from and through their practices, I used Biesta’s theory of civic learning (Biesta, 2011). It involves a socialisation conception of civic learning as the adoption of existing civic identities, where individuals adapt to a given political order, and a subjectification conception which focuses on how political agency is achieved. The theory connects learning and action together, where Biesta argues socialisation involves the individual requiring to learn something in order to carry out the ‘correct’ actions in the future; however, subjectification involves action preceding learning, where learning comes second, if at all. I used a case study design and a psychogeographic mapping methodology involving secondary data analysis, psychogeographic mapping interviews and observations. Civic action emerged as a more central component than civic learning through my empirical analysis. The civic actions of GHS emerged as a case of reconsideration (redefining, re-meaning their location through interventions in public), and CVAC of reconfiguration (actions physically altering the landscape). These actions concerning space and time involved spatial shifts from mapreading to mapmaking, and temporal shifts from histories ‘of’ and ‘for’ the public, towards histories ‘by’ the public. Respondents became ‘curators’ of their places: from spectators to participants in making and representing spaces and histories that opened their locations to interruptions of the continuities of time. Attending to practices of citizens with space and time contains possibilities for public pedagogies that work ‘with’ context rather than just ‘in’, towards opening up opportunities for citizens to ‘become public’ as practices that trouble pre-existing arrangements and configurations.