The mixed classroom: a pedagogical experiment with students and policymakers

It is well recognised that the ecological crisis requires rethinking social practices at multiple scales and repositions higher education institutions as potential agents of change. The authors argue that the conventional ‘information deficit model’ is insufficient for contemporary challenges and that universities should engage in co-productive, transdisciplinary, and experimental approaches—extending to education, not just research. The paper reflects on six years of experimentation with a mixed classroom bringing students and policy practitioners together to learn with and from each other on key societal challenges. It positions this experiment within broader movements such as community service learning, transdisciplinary education, and lifelong learning, while critiquing overly economic framings of lifelong learning and underscoring the democratic and developmental roles of education. The science-policy interface is often conceived unidirectionally as ‘turning science into policy’, resulting in congested, siloed intermediaries. The authors propose direct, dialogical cross-boundary interaction—operationalised as a mixed classroom—as an alternative. The paper contributes by: (1) addressing both educational and institutional dimensions of pedagogical experiments, (2) reporting a prize-winning case of a mixed classroom in which students and policymakers co-learn, and (3) detailing six years of ‘tinkering’ to help others organise similar classrooms. The study aims to illuminate how learning occurs in and through a mixed classroom for participants, teachers, and organisational actors, using the concepts of ‘tinkering’ and ‘boundary crossing’ (with mechanisms of reflection and transformation) to frame individual and organisational learning.

The paper situates its pedagogical experiment within literature on science-policy interfaces, co-production, lifelong learning, transdisciplinary education, and boundary crossing. It critiques the information deficit model (e.g., Bulkeley, 2000) and draws on co-productive/transdisciplinary scholarship (Gibbons et al., 1994; Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993; Seidl et al., 2013), and the need for continued experimentation (Bulkeley, 2023). It references lifelong learning debates, noting critiques of economic functionalism and emphasizing democratic/subjectification roles for education (Biesta, 2006). The central conceptual framing is boundary crossing (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011; Akkerman & Bruining, 2016; Wenger-Trayner et al., 2014; Engeström et al., 1995), where learning emerges from dialogicality and collaboration across communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger et al., 2002). Key learning mechanisms are reflection (individual-level perspective making/taking) and transformation (organizational-level hybridization, crystallisation, and continuous joint work). The approach is informed by American Pragmatism (Dewey, 1938; Schön, 1992; Stark, 2014) and ‘tinkering’ from STS and making (Knorr-Cetina, 1981; Resnick & Rosenbaum, 2013; Wilkinson & Petrich, 2014), viewing iterative adaptation as essential to educational innovation at the science-policy interface. The authors relate dramaturgical configurations (Hajer & Pelzer, 2018) and speculative design/perceptual bridges (Auger, 2013, via text) to their hybrid public-facing formats (e.g., ‘museum of the future’).

Design: A longitudinal practice-based educational experiment (2016–2022) at Utrecht University’s Urban Futures Studio created a ‘mixed classroom’ where students and policymakers interacted regularly around futuring-oriented themes. The approach was grounded in American Pragmatism’s inquiry-by-doing and iterative adjustment (‘tinkering’), emphasising a ‘conversation with the situation’ (Schön, 1992) rather than predefined instruction. Participants and setting: Student cohorts enrolled in a 7.5 ECTS, 10-week course (approx. 20 hours/week), and Dutch national-level policymakers (primarily ministry civil servants) participated concurrently. Recognizing asymmetrical time availability, the mixed sessions were scheduled on Wednesday afternoons, with students working further in Friday seminars. Venues were selected to facilitate access for policymakers (e.g., in The Hague). Language of interaction was primarily English, which introduced reciprocal learning dynamics due to differing proficiencies. Procedures and iterations: Year 1 prioritised attracting policymakers via reputable guest speakers, co-defined policy-relevant themes, and staged reflective formats (e.g., ‘celebrity interviews’ drawing on Liberating Structures). Midterm/final evaluations showed guest lectures skewed toward information transfer, suppressing interaction. Subsequent years reduced lectures, increased structured interaction, and iteratively reconfigured formats to deepen reflection and co-learning. COVID-19 forced two online runs, with creative adaptations (object-based discussions from home settings, ‘telephone walks’ in neighbourhoods) while noting the constraints of virtual interaction. Pedagogical tools: Assignments included the ‘Practitioner Profile’ (students interview policymakers and write first-person narratives to enact perspective taking/making), biographical interviews with guest speakers, and collaborative scenario/futuring interventions. The course culminated annually in a public-facing, dramaturgically staged event (e.g., exhibitions, museums of the future, excursions, a ‘sanatorium for temporal confusion’) functioning as hybrid exchange platforms. Annual themes/interventions: 2016–2017 Futuring the Netherlands (Uninvited Futuring, exhibition experiment); 2017–2018 Neighbourhoods (A Coach for Conversation, joint neighbourhood tour); 2018–2019 Mobility (Mobility Museum 2050, museum concept to restore imagination); 2019–2020 Circular Economy (Museum of the Linear Economy, deeper immersive qualities); 2020–2021 Climate Adaptation (Ministry of Modesty, fully digital delivery prioritising discourse); 2021–2022 Temporality (Sanatorium for Temporal Confusion, role reversal and heightened interaction). Analytic framing: The authors examined learning dynamics via boundary crossing mechanisms—reflection (individual perspective making/taking) and transformation (organizational hybridization, crystallisation, and continuous joint work), complemented by a view of ‘tinkering’ as institutional entrepreneurship. Evidence sources included course materials, staged events, participant interactions, and anonymous quotes from interviews and evaluations (with consent).

• Boundary crossing as a productive lens: The mixed classroom effectively fostered learning at the science-policy boundary; Akkerman & Bakker’s mechanisms—reflection (individual) and transformation (organizational)—captured the observed dynamics.
• Reflection (individual learning): Participants developed ‘perspective making’ (e.g., policymakers articulating tacit practice knowledge; students clarifying academic strengths/limits) and ‘perspective taking’ (e.g., first-person Practitioner Profiles). Students reported richer understandings of policymaking’s constraints (e.g., participation often a ‘box to check’ due to time/resources). Policymakers reported being stimulated to reassess their work from new substantive/process perspectives.
• Reciprocity and equal footing: Despite initial asymmetry (policy practice as focal topic), iterative design increased reciprocity. Language proficiency differences (students often more fluent in English) unexpectedly acted as an equalizer, fostering mutual support and reflection on insecurities.
• Unfolding desire for interaction: Each year, increased interaction time generated greater appetite for further interaction, evidencing intrinsic value of cross-community engagement beyond filling an a priori ‘need’.
• Hybridization (organizational transformation): Public-facing, dramaturgically staged formats (e.g., Museum of the Linear Economy in a fictional night shop) created hybrid spaces that reshaped discourse (e.g., values/cultural aspects in circular economy). These events travelled to national/institutional conferences and drew ministerial attention, catalyzing further engagement (e.g., ministry Summer School on futuring, in-house workshops).
• Crystallisation: Elements diffused beyond the original course—summer school (from 2018), challenge-based courses (2022), a Continuing Education initiative (2023), and wider uptake of methods (e.g., Museum of the Future concept; detective wall). The mixed classroom became an exemplar after the 2021 Dutch Higher Education Award.
• Continuous joint work: Sustained coordination with ministries and re-affirmation of legitimacy/relevance were critical each year; the course functioned less as ‘training’ and more as a shared space for new conversations. Tinkering remained necessary; no fixed ‘model’ emerged.
• Practical specifics: Course embedded as 7.5 ECTS, 10 weeks; mixed sessions midweek, student seminars Fridays; gradual reduction of lectures in favor of interactive formats; full digital pivot during COVID-19 with creative but constrained engagement.

The study set out to understand how learning occurs in and through a mixed classroom at the science-policy interface. Findings demonstrate that structured, dialogical cross-boundary interaction generates individual reflection (through perspective making/taking) and seeds organizational transformation (through hybrid formats, diffusion, and ongoing collaboration). This directly addresses the perceived inadequacy of the information deficit model by replacing one-way ‘knowledge transfer’ with co-productive engagements that surface tacit practice knowledge and test academic ideas in real-world contexts. The dramaturgically staged public events acted as perceptual bridges that reframed policy debates (e.g., on circular economy values) and catalyzed follow-on institutional activities (e.g., summer schools, workshops), evidencing transformation beyond the classroom. The iterative ‘tinkering’ approach—combining pedagogical innovation with institutional entrepreneurship—proved essential to adapt to constraints (time, language, pandemic) and to maintain relevance in dynamic policy environments. However, the necessity of continuous joint work and the lack of routinisation indicate that such boundary work thrives under conditions of flexibility, resources, and supportive partnerships, and may resist standardization. Overall, the mixed classroom reframes the science-policy interface from a congested set of intermediaries into a shared learning space with tangible individual and organizational learning outcomes.

The paper contributes conceptually and practically to reimagining the science-policy interface through education. Conceptually, boundary crossing (reflection and transformation) effectively explains how mixed classrooms foster learning and institutional change; ‘tinkering’ adds a lens on the educator’s dual role as pedagogue and institutional entrepreneur. Practically, six years of iterative design show that reducing information-transfer lectures, centering reciprocal interaction, and staging hybrid public events can generate deeper learning and influence organizational practices. The approach, while valued by students, policymakers, and educators (recognized by the 2021 Dutch Higher Education Award), has limits: it is resource-intensive, uncertain, and difficult to institutionalize without careful administrative support. Future directions include: expanding mixed communities (e.g., artists, activists, entrepreneurs); creating more flexible academic calendars to align with policy temporalities; selectively institutionalizing administrative and repeatable format elements to free capacity for continued tinkering; and sustaining partnerships that enable continuous joint work at boundaries.

• Evidence is practice-based and context-specific (Utrecht University, Dutch ministries); generalizability may be limited.
• No controlled comparison or quantitative assessment of learning outcomes; transformative effects are difficult to isolate amidst other influences.
• Resource/time intensive for teachers and students; high uncertainty until late stages due to ongoing tinkering.
• Structural constraints of higher education (fixed timeslots/periods) misalign with policy temporalities (e.g., electoral cycles), limiting integration.
• Online editions (COVID-19) constrained interaction despite creative adaptations; physical co-presence proved important.
• Institutionalization remained partial: the mixed classroom functioned as a relatively shielded niche; formal embedding (teaching hours, funding flows) lagged behind inspirational diffusion.
• Authors were also course designers/teachers, introducing potential positive-outcome bias despite efforts at transparency and anonymization.