AAEL practice transfer for the AAEL journey
Transfer of the AAEL framework to the practice of (higher) education in the post-digital age
In this chapter, the focus is on transfer, which aims to make the AAEL (Ambidextrous Agile Educational Leadership) framework applicable to the practice of higher education. The shortened term “AAEL practice transfer” opens up the entire field of practice and practices resulting from the application and integration of this conceptual approach into the field of (higher) education in the post-digital era.
AAEL Practice Transfer – in addition to the separate AAEL PlayBook – refers to and is to present the conceptual aspects of the AAEL framework usable and manageable elements for better access and greater comprehensibility. This includes visualizations and explanations of AAEL values and AAEL principles with practical explanations.
The AAEL practice transfer chapter is divided into three parts:
- Part I highlights the practice of higher education and describes the value orientation of AAEL in Doing and Being. All elements of the AAEL framework are also named here as central points of reference and brought together structurally and visually in order to make them more tangible for the practice of the AAEL journey.
- Part II switches to the process level, after the structured presentation along possible content-related discussions within the framework of the visualized AAEL building blocks. As a framework for an AAEL journey, belonging to the AAEL-values the AAEL principles, which are essential for AAEL-Being and -Doing in the individual and joint implementation of AAEL, are introduced and explained in more detail after the AAEL values.
- Part III describes a fictitious example scenario, the Learning University (hereinafter referred to as LU for short). It serves as a subsequent practical illustration of possible activities in the development process with AAEL — and as a guide through the individual building blocks of an independent AAEL PlayBook, which takes up and integrates the points described in the transfer.
PartI
orientation – and also a piece of democracy on a small scale
As central points of reference, this first part presents, on the one hand, the understanding of a practice of (higher) education with its established and newly emerging practices and, on the other hand, the reference to AAEL-Being and AAEL-Doing. AAEL values and AAEL principles are then described and categorized in detail. In addition, a general overview of the AAEL framework is presented in the form of a visualization. All of this forms the basis for the ideas presented later on as to how the AAEL framework can be translated into practice in higher education (or other areas of education).
1 The practice of (higher) education
In this chapter, higher education is taken as an exemplary field in order to illustrate the transfer of the AAEL framework. In principle, however, AAEL can just as easily be applied in early childhood, school or vocational education settings as well as in adult and continuing education.
The aim of AAEL and the implementation of specific AAEL practices is to take a systemic view of higher education practice – a complex structure of routines, interactions and institutional structures – and to consciously act in this context with the whole in mind. This makes it clear that AAEL is seen as a comprehensive understanding of practice, in which the theoretical framework with its concepts and the modes of action that can be derived from it (AAEL practices) as well as the concrete practice itself interpenetrate and adjust each other.
AAEL can help to establish or strengthen changed and newly emerging patterns, attitudes, processes and structures in the practice of higher education and thus have a lasting impact. It is not about establishing isolated methods or tools. Rather, AAEL offers guidance on how (excellent) teaching, research, transfer and social responsibility (third mission) as well as other requirements for higher education in the existing organizational structures can be rethought together (transformation) and further developed in incremental steps (transition) from the perspective of leadership in the post-digital era. The focus therefore remains on making higher education more future-proof together – with AAEL and not for its own sake.
Challenges such as the digital transformation can be reflected upon, adapted or redesigned along existing routines and communication patterns with regard to post-digitality and thus made sustainable. Aspects such as transparency, accessibility, responsibility and participation with a view to future generations can also be used to establish good links to similarly oriented educational practices – such as those for sustainable development (SDG) or Open Educational Practices (OEP).
An AAEL practice with its specific practices develops emergently in the interplay between AAEL Doing and AAEL Being. This interplay can hardly be rigidly defined, as Doing is formed in action through individual and shared practices and methodologies, while Being (further) develops in personal reflection and experience-based growth processes. There is no clear answer as to whether AAEL Doing can only succeed if a certain AAEL Being already exists or whether, conversely, Doing promotes Being. It is more likely that both develop in parallel and influence each other reciprocally. In both cases, Doing and Being are based on values and principles that give them direction.
So before we look more closely at specific aspects of AAEL practice, the next step is to return to the values of the AAEL framework. They arise and change through participatory negotiation within a democratic design culture.
2 Values in the AAEL framework: Strengthening democracy on a small scale
AAEL is to be understood as a primarily value- and principle-based framework. The basic idea of a framework for action that specific values and principles was adapted from the context of agility1 for the field of (higher) education with the AAEL framework. Actors in the field can make independent decisions and act in a value-oriented manner along this framework, both individually and collectively, in order to be able to deal appropriately with complex situations such as those that occur every day in (higher) education.
The AAEL is about taking responsibility for better education as the basis and goal of democratic coexistence and participatory cooperation. Here, education is shaped step by step by assuming leadership in one’s own area of activity. Structural and personal aspects are addressed in equal measure and cultural developments and contextual conditions are included in order to enable and strengthen participatory, resilient and innovative (higher) education in a sustainable and value-oriented manner for all in the interests of diverse stakeholders. The AAEL framework thus stands for a fundamental democratic conviction.
Naming values within the AAEL framework is double-edged. After all, they only make sense as a basis for the action process and strengthen mutual trust if they are accepted and shared by all stakeholders. At the same time, they cannot simply be imposed on everyone. The AAEL framework is therefore also about promoting the mutual facilitation of actual participation, willingness to selforganize and assume responsibility in a trusting framework and questioning traditional structures in a power-critical manner.
The task therefore remains to understand values from the outset as the result of understanding and appreciative negotiation. With a view to agility, it can be concluded that a consensus as a democratic form of co-determination based on shared values can already enable sustainable and meaningful collaboration. In their respective form, AAEL values are therefore always the subject of (power-critical) negotiations in the respective (educational) areas.
The AAEL values themselves now follow in the next section: They tie in with this basic understanding of democratic negotiation and are also the anchor on which the AAEL principles are based.
For this reason, trust and responsibility are regarded and emphasized as central values in the AAEL framework:
Trust
….because trust is the basis for successful cooperation and mutual support and strengthens relationships and (psychological) security. Trust in each other and in formal, structural, legal and social framework conditions is a prerequisite and consequence of all other values. After all, trust cannot be imposed; it is acquired through responsible cooperation with one another, strengthened and can also be lost again.
Responsibility
…because the ability and willingness to take on and hand over responsibility is fundamental for participatory (learning) processes at all levels, collaborative working contexts and for functioning self-organization in groups, teams and organizations. Responsibility also means a long-term commitment to sustainable educational processes and the willingness to critically reflect on the effects of one’s own actions in education in the post-digital age.
Equally relevant values as the basis for an AAEL and its principles as future-oriented leadership in the education sector within the reference framework of agility and ambidexterity are the following:
Courage
…because AAEL invites you to be courageous and to take risks in your actions with a view to an uncertain future and to approach change proactively as a long-term process despite uncertainties. Courage also includes the willingness to see rapid testing and mistakes as learning opportunities and to create an environment in which innovative ideas can be tested and risks taken. AAEL supports the willingness to innovate and to overcome uncertainties in complex situations.
Openess
…because AAEL thrives on personal openness and open structures and the willingness for transparency and a free exchange of materials, information and ideas in the broader sense of Open Educational Practice (OEP). Openness also means continuously integrating new findings and technological developments and constantly developing personally well as (higher) education and thus reacting flexibly to new challenges and opportunities.
Respect
…because an AAEL is about having respect for people and recognizing and valuing the contributions and perspectives of everyone involved in the collaboration – and giving feedback with respect for the person. In this respect, respect means interacting with all stakeholders and perspectives on an equal footing and ensuring that all voices are heard and valued.
Diversity
…because AAEL consciously seeks opportunities beyond dualities in-between and outside, and the framework integrates diclusive and inclusive perspectives and backgrounds with a view to diversity in education in the postdigital age in order to create a suitable, sustainable education for all. Diversity is therefore a continuous framing process that must be actively nurtured and promoted in order to create an inclusive environment.
Feedback
…because constructive feedback motivates rapid learning in terms of outcome with a view to achieving the goal and promotes personal growth within the organization. Feedback is important in both formative and summative sense in order to promote continuous learning and the achievement of goals.
Engagement
…because the AAEL framework is primarily based on the willingness and (self-)commitment to achieve common goals in order to continuously improve education through rapid feedback. Engagement requires a balance between individual responsibility and collective commitment to iteratively achieve shared goals. A reliable commitment is needed for goals such as process design.
Focus
…because in the complexity of education, focus and concentration on the next task is important. In this respect, focus means setting clear goals and interim goals and pursuing them consistently, and being able to remain motivated as well as efficient and effective when taking the next steps.
Communication
…because communication, especially in the post-digital age, in all its forms of verbal, non-verbal and digital communication, is essential for coordination and constant exchange between people, within teams and organizations in order continuously improve education together.
AAEL values considered in practice
Below are some additional considerations on how the AAEL values mentioned be realized in practice:
Together instead of by decree: The basis for constant negotiation
A key point is the insight that values can only be effective if they are supported by all stakeholders involved. These values form an initial coherent foundation for an AAEL logic that combines agility and ambidexterity in such a way that it can be used to continuously develop individual and organizational learning processes. They will continue to develop or differentiate over time and, realistically speaking, can probably always be fully reconciled. But for the common start, they form a target space and an anchor for reflecting on communication for shared goals and a mission. Values also create a direct link to the idea of an agile mindset: “being” in the AAEL context means reflecting and negotiating values and principles with each other in such a way that they provide a sustainable orientation framework for action on complex problems.
Interaction of person and organization
Particularly in areas of education where traditional power structures exist (e.g. hierarchical distribution of decision-making powers), the “both/and” of stability and innovation can only work if actors at all levels are allowed to reflect on and help shape their role. Values such as responsibility and trust have an impact here at both a personal and organizational level. When people with traditional leadership roles and functions (e.g. lecturers, deans, presidents) consciously and transparently share responsibility, trust within the system grows.
Courage and openness as drivers for exploration
Ambidexterity as an organizational and personal ability to switch between improving the existing and exploring completely new approaches requires a continuous willingness to innovate. Courage and openness are the personal “attitudes” required for this. Where openness is a shared principle, there is room to boldly explore new paths and to see failures as experiences that promote learning and to create a shared learning culture.
Respect and diversity in self-organized teams
Especially when teams of different forms (core teams to temporary team constellations or ad-hoc teams) work largely selforganized in AAEL contexts, respect and diversity are essential factors for psychological safety. A development space is created for all personalities involved with their respective competencies, in which different perspectives are not only tolerated, but also specifically integrated. This promotes a spectrum of ideas and options for action and offers opportunities for the adoption and diversity of perspectives, which is indispensable for education in the post-digital age, especially in scenarios that are still uncertain.
Feedback and commitment as a driver for continuous learning
What is often fascinating about agile working methods is how dynamically and naturally feedback can be incorporated without those involved having to be afraid of making mistakes. This only works if everyone – from individuals and teams to the entire organization – prepared to see constructive feedback as an opportunity. This learning culture requires commitment and a sense of responsibility in order to be willing and able to give each other feedback.
Focus and communication in highly complex change processes
Education in the post-digital age is highly complex: there are countless parallel factors and known and sometimes uncertain requirements to consider. This is why focus in the AAEL sense not only plays a role at a methodological level (e.g. on priorities in sprints or on the next agreed step), but especially at an attitudinal and organizational level. Clear and open communication is also essential in order to keep goals, roles and intermediate statuses transparent.
Values as a living framework for AAEL
If we understand AAEL as a framework for action and design for sustainable (higher) education, it also becomes clear that the values listed here not only help to structure the space for action, but also invite us to enable a lively learning and cultural practice together. On the one hand, values can serve as a compass and also develop further in interaction — or only emerge emergently in direct, reflective interaction.
In the long term, they should help to ensure that agility and ambidexterity do not remain merely “modern buzzwords” or “new methods” for the sake of appearances, but instead become a framework of values with real depth that fits in with their own practice. In this way, a value-oriented AAEL practice develops step by step over time and democratic principles can be experienced in everyday interaction. Ultimately, value orientation is always most evident where it is linked to action and can also develop emergently — in the spirit of a learning and educational culture characterized by ambidextrous and agile behaviour.
3 AAEL elements visualized in interaction
In the following, the key elements of the AAEL framework are explained and illustrated in a practical way to show how AAEL can function as a stimulating concept and help to shape higher education practice in a future-oriented way.
In this variant, a deductive representation from the general to the concrete is followed. That means here: From post-digitality as a context – via the central eponymous concepts – to an AAEL culture developing emergently through AAEL-Doing and AAEL-Being at the center. This view of the model is not fixed and can also be read differently depending on the perspective.
The following visualization bundles all twelve elements of the current version 2.1 of the AAEL framework and thus depicts them on the background foil of post-digitality:
Figure: Visualisation of the AAEL framework – Ambidextrous Agile Educational Leadership for the joint design of (higher) education in the post-digital era, version 2.1.
AAEL elements in the image of a construction kit
The aforementioned elements can also be seen as such in their interplay: as elements for playful testing, exploring and experimenting.
And so the visualization was developed in the style of a construction kit with colourful wooden bricks or building blocks (perhaps also known as the Tangram game2). Strictly speaking, this visualization developed emergently in a longer process of scribbling.
And therefore the image of building blocks has also emerged here in relation to the elements. A ‘building block’ is understood here as a framing box containing colored individual building blocks that fill the space within this frame. Building blocks with corners and edges and in different shapes have been chosen, which can be joined together to form a whole and are therefore compatible with each other in every case. One can imagine three-dimensional, movable elements here.
Together, all the building blocks make up the AAEL framework. They exist as individual elements that only form a whole together and become effective when they interact with each other.
The chosen colors and shapes direct connections or unique positions. They are taken up again for better orientation, especially in the transfer for practice in the (higher) education sector with its methods and practices.
In the visualization, the respective building blocks stand for the thematic elements that together model and fill the AAEL framework. Viewed from the outside in, these building blocks can be categorized as follows:
Post-Digitality
In the visualization, post-digitality forms the base of the entire graphic and is conceived as the primary challenge at present, as well as an essential reference field for education. In the colour scheme, this contextualizing element appears in a light shade of grey — a deliberate choice, as it lies behind the other building blocks like a foil and can be understood figuratively as the box of the building set. The AAEL framework is thus symbolically embedded and contextualized in digitality3.
Post-digitality describes a current cultural state in the digital transformation, which must not only be understood as a technological development, but also critically reflected upon. It is not merely an external contextual condition for (higher) education in the context of digital transformation, but also a profound social dynamic that permeates education and its practice. Since post-digitality is repeatedly addressed as a central contextual condition and social challenge for (higher) education, it forms the basis of the AAEL framework – a condition that is not only effective as a background, but is already inherent in the situations and practices of AAEL.
Ambidextrous + Agile + Educational + Leadership
The eponymous conceptual elements of the AAEL framework are Ambidextrous, Agile, Educational and Leadership. The English terms have been deliberately retained, as they not only enable international connectivity to existing discourses, but also open up a broader perspective in terms of content. These four central elements are represented in the visualization by differently colored rectangles, which also serve as a frame for the inner components of the AAEL building block.
The Ambidextrous4 building block stands for the simultaneous optimization of the tried and tested and the testing, development and of the new. It embodies an integrating and balancing perspective on change by deliberately adopting a both/and attitude. In complex structures, this means navigating confidently between seemingly opposing poles such as stability and innovation as well as building bridges – and thus developing the ability to act in the in-between. The color for this element in the visualization is orange.
The next building block, Agile5, emphasizes the importance of a gradual, learning willingness to adapt to complex, dynamic contexts — an essential skill, particularly in (higher) education. In this logic, agility and ambidexterity can be applied to a wide range of educational and organizational areas. The color for this element in the visualization is green.
In this article, the Educational6 building brick focuses on the (higher) education sector and its specific challenges. It is not just about teaching and learning, but about education in a comprehensive sense – with structural, personal, cultural and political dimensions that are crucial for sustainable educational processes. The color for this element in the visualization is blue.
The fourth building block, Leadership7, refers to the facilitation and assumption of (personal) responsibility within structures and institutional conditions in education. Leadership is conceived as an overarching, professional understanding of action that unfolds across different roles and levels. The color for this element in the visualization is yellow.
These four conceptual building blocks – Ambidextrous, Agile, Educational and Leadership – can be combined in a transdisciplinary way. They frame the other elements that address the development and action space (doing and being with person and organization) of the actors, including the principles and values as well as the emergence of a specific AAEL culture.
People + Organization + Being + Doing
The interaction of people with their personalities and attitudes as well as organizations with their rules, formal and informal structures and institutional frameworks meets the dynamic dimensions of AAEL Doing and AAEL Being in the AAEL framework. These four elements – Person, Being, Organization and Doing – are represented as equal triangles whose bases form an inner square and thus enclose the center of the building block within the conceptual elements of AAEL.
Doing und Being sowie ihr Zusammenspiel mit Person und Organisation sind nicht starr festzuschreiben, sondern entstehen und verändern sich im Handeln – durch Methoden und Praktiken, durch Reflexion und Erfahrung, durch individuelles und gemeinschaftliches Wachstum. In diesem Rahmen stehen sie für eine spezifische Praxis des Handelns und Seins einer Person in und mit der Bildungsorganisation – eingebettet in geteilte Ziele, getragen von einer Vision und immer in Wechselwirkung mit Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und möglichen Zukünften.
Values + Principles
In the center of the visualization are specific AAEL values and principles in the form of two triangles of the same colour that complement each other to form a diamond. Values and principles both arise from the context of post-digitality and the conceptual elements of AAEL. Both are united by the fact that they are developed in the interplay of person(s) and organization(s), including their educational mission — and, where necessary, must be specifically negotiated in order to be shared. Instead of a static set of rules, in the interplay between Being AAEL and Doing AAEL, they form situational and context-dependent points of orientation for all actors in their everyday actions in the complexity of education. They are therefore placed as the core within the rhombus, where they in turn form the framework for the final, central building block. Both elements should actually have the same colors to express their equal value, but again two different colors are used to better distinguish the two elements.
Culture
In the visualization, culture is a square in the center of the building block. In the interplay of the building blocks mentioned so far, a newly emerging understanding of culture can emerge, develop and cultivate over time within the framework of AAEL (AAEL culture for short) – following the existing culture as the specific starting point of an educational organization. Culture forms the center of the AAEL framework, but not as a rigid structure, but as a dynamic space of possibility that is constantly changing in the interaction of values, principles, doing and being. It remains open to new developments and perspectives, while at the same time offering orientation as a core element. As an open, networked center, it is in direct exchange with the surrounding elements and continues to change through the interaction of people, organizations and their structures. In this way, it remains permeable to new impulses, can absorb new ideas and preserve the tried and tested. An AAEL culture can thus be seen as a living, fluid core in the sense of an ambidextrous perspective – stabilizing and at the same time adaptable, emergent and malleable, interwoven with the elements of the framework and in constant development. The color for this is – also with a conscious view to Frederic Laloux’s8 ideas of a teal organization – petrol.
Teil II
AAEL in the process
This part further prepares you to engage in AAEL practice and to integrate and adapt AAEL for higher education practice in your own organization step by step (see the AAEL PlayBook).
For a good process, rules for dealing with the AAEL framework in one’s own educational organization are first established here and then the process of change and transformation with AAEL for one’s own goal and one’s own idea and vision of (higher) education is described. Then, drawing on the individual elements of the framework, overarching, action-guiding AAEL principles are formulated and explained.
1 AAEL game rules
The AAEL framework is based on the image of a building block and the following explanations can be read accordingly as a kind of set of rules9for a potentially successful interaction between and in dealing with the individual building blocks and their relationship to one another.
Every brick counts!
Despite flexibility and adaptability, each building block serves a specific purpose and has its value in the structure of the AAEL construct so that AAEL can develop coherently as a whole.
The first rule of the game is therefore not to completely ignore any of the building blocks and to consciously engage with all perspectives – each with a different weighting – in a systemic way. In the sense of a construction kit and similar to a tangram game10 each “piece” or each new iteration requires all parts to symbolically connected and considered together.
Partial acceptance of the AAEL core or completely omitting building blocks (‘cherry-picking’) could lead to not addressing and dealing with all the questions and issues addressed in AAEL. In case of doubt, intentional omission is more likely to contribute to the failure of AAEL.
Winning together!
This is because the AAEL framework is not a recipe or a step-by-step guide that is ‘the’ one way or ‘the’ one suitable solution for everyone and can be worked through according to a plan. Rather, the AAEL framework offers building blocks that, in a dynamic interplay of actors in the respective educational organization, result in a suitable, coherent whole with a view to the next, future development steps. The AAEL framework always starts with what is already there – with the organization(s) and the person(s). What is equally important for AAEL is a personal and organizational willingness to embrace change in the form of an ongoing learning process or a permanent learning journey. To stay with the image of the building block, a journey during which everyone has and receives the opportunity to touch the building blocks again and again through testing and feedback and to be able to help build and rebuild them.
What does not fit is not made to fit!
If it is clearly not possible to reach an agreement on the interaction of the building blocks of AAEL, it is better to choose and pursue a different starting point for further development. In this respect, a justified or deliberate omission or avoidance of building blocks in the AAEL can already be a first development step for an alternative way of dealing with change and transformation for the respective educational organization. In this case, an AAEL is not suitable.
These AAEL rules, which initially accompany the AAEL framework at the start, will also develop in the course of the respective AAEL journey.
2 Principles in the AAEL framework – integrating guidelines for joint action
Values and principles form the reference for AAEL-Being. The AAEL values shape the basic attitude and orientation in a post-digital and highly complex educational world. Accordingly, they also play a role in the AAEL principles, where they are taken up and elaborated as principles for action. They illustrate how the values can be integrated into practical and flexible guidelines that can be used by those involved at all levels (micro, meso, macro) and across all levels. Each person and each organization can adapt them to their own structures and cultures – in accordance with their own goals and resources – but without losing the AAEL core: flexible, value-based and future-oriented design of education.
The AAEL framework was deliberately designed as a framework and not as a step-by-step or phase-by-phase guide. Rather, the AAEL framework sets out central principles along the conceptual elements. Together, the AAEL values and principles are intended to create a basis for the cooperative, innovative and sustainable design of (higher) education. They are aimed at the feasibility of implementing AAEL in practice and are to be understood as guiding and guiding common behavior11. The following AAEL principles are therefore essential, value-based guidelines that structure actions and decisions, promote situational flexibility and adaptability and can be applied inter- and transdisciplinarily.
In summary, this results in the following principles of action for version 2.1 of the AAEL framework, which are explained further below:
- Value-based action for sustainable (higher) education
- Post-digitality as a matter of course
- Bridging the duality of exploration and exploitation
- Sovereign agility in the (higher) education sector
- Social responsibility and educational mission
- Integrated leadership in (higher) education
Value-based action for sustainable (higher) education
The first principle of action in the AAEL framework draws on the values described in the previous sections, which is why the description is kept more concise here: The action principle of values-based action in the AAEL framework to enable a culture in higher education that is underpinned by shared values and principles. This creates a trusting, respectful and innovative environment that promotes participatory learning and self-organization. By emphasizing responsibility, trust, courage, openness, respect, diversity, feedback, engagement, focus and communication, sustainable and future-proof education is made possible in a collaborative way.
Post-digitality as a matter of course
AAEL naturally takes place in the digital transformation, which is now considered a significant external driver for the education sector alongside other social developments and crises. The AAEL framework is already oriented towards a post-digital perspective on education that goes beyond this, in which digitality is part of everyday life.
The perspective remains that in this post-digitality lies a space of possibility that, beyond the necessary IT infrastructures, also creates a space for interaction, for learning, for community and (media) education, which can be filled and shaped again.
The principle of self-evident post-digitality aims to shape higher education in such a way that it takes place confidently in both the analog and the digital world. And such an explicit differentiation is not necessary, as the world of life and everyday life is naturally permeated by media – and thus also our communication and interaction. The AAEL framework therefore assumes an omnipresent mediality and a profoundly mediatized society. In this, digitality is naturally integrated as a cultural condition for interaction and communication in the digital transformation. The post-digital perspective on (higher) education recognizes the everyday pervasiveness of digitality and is committed to creating a flexible, resilient and sustainable but also critical educational landscape that meets the challenges and needs of a democratic society.
Bridging the duality of exploration and exploitation
This principle is somewhat more complex, which is why the introduction here is more detailed:
For AAEL in higher education, organizational ambidexterity as a contextual variant and personal or individual ambidexterity are decisive12, as they can be connected to existing practices and praxis. They also describe the most complex variants of ambidexterity. This means that educational organizations, such as universities, need to create an environment, as well as shape it together with individuals, in which risk-taking and creativity (exploration) and efficiency and optimization of existing processes (exploitation) are equally valued and promoted. Bridging the gap between these dualities in the sense of a “both-and” determines the everyday life of AAEL in order to be able to decide and act with confidence.
The existence and handling of roles and structures are central elements here. In this way, actors can make clear and transparent decisions in the complexity of education in sometimes parallel existing contradictory organizational models and take action and responsibility in the form of leadership for their respective areas of activity. AAEL requires a willingness on the part of both the organization and the individual to cultivate a confident approach to the complex simultaneity and equivalence of the new and the existing and the ability to constantly change and let go.
In practice, a both/and is also to be understood as finding further equivalent, integrated or balanced solutions between these dualities. In a visual example, this means looking for and finding solutions between red and blue as dualities in the many shades of violet. Strictly speaking, the complex requirements of (higher) education with its multiple tasks in research, teaching, transfer or social responsibility remain far more complex than those stored in a duality, so that we could also speak here of a multitude of requirements with a view to the in-between, for each of which another hand is needed instead of two or both hands. However, on closer inspection, ambidexterity is not primarily about a number, but about acting and balancing solutions with a view to a paradox, i.e. essentially contradictory and incompatible things. Ambidexterity therefore does not stand for a number, but for a fundamental approach. This is why the term ambidexterity is retained here when exploration and exploitation are placed in relation to each other, as it is about the principle of bridging.
Enabling and promoting an appropriate culture that supports both exploration and exploitation in equal measure and supports the ability to act in the in-between is fundamental in AAEL. Enabling conditions to promote the emergence of an AAEL culture is challenging and complex. The AAEL assumes that a flexible, agile organizational structure that promotes openness to new ideas and individual initiatives through self-organization as well as systematic efficiency and optimized routines provides fertile ground for this. The principle of action of Bridging the duality of exploration and exploitation aims to strengthen a culture that values and promotes risk-taking and creativity as well as efficiency and optimized routines. Such a culture makes it possible to navigate flexibly and confidently between new approaches and existing processes and to adapt to changing conditions. At first glance, this is about balancing the respective dualities, but at second glance, it is primarily about finding solutions between the two — in the sense of cultivating a sovereign ability to act in the in-between. Or metaphorically: finding and building bridges. This culture supports individual initiatives and self-organization as well as systematic efficiency and optimized routines in order to sustainably promote both personal and institutional development. By integrating organizational and individual ambidexterity, both the proactive design of (higher) education is enabled and the situational adaptability, development capacity and innovative ability of educational institutions and education in a broader sense are strengthened in a fast-moving, complex and uncertain world.
Sovereign agility in the (higher) education sector
Agility plays a central role in modern (higher) education, as it makes it possible to react quickly and effectively to the dynamic and complex challenges of today’s educational landscape and, above all, to proactive, step-by-step action.
By implementing agile principles and practices, universities can increase their flexibility and adaptability to meet both short-term requirements and long-term strategic goals. Agility promotes a culture of continuous learning and improvement, which is crucial to meet the needs students, teachers and external demands on higher education.
For AAEL in higher education, both the actual “Doing Agile” and “Being Agile” are important starting points. They provide space to develop an inner, agile attitude that contributes to and develops in the negotiation and integration of agile values and principles (Being Agile) as well as to realize agility through the concrete application of methods and practices (Doing Agile) in everyday education in order to optimize processes and react flexibly to changes in order to ultimately deliver a better result. In this case, the intended result is to improve higher education in an agile way.
The interplay between “Doing Agile” and “Being Agile” requires a flexible, agile organizational structure as well as a culture of continuous learning and adaptability. By cultivating agile collaboration, universities can master the complexity and dynamics of the education sector with confidence and create sustainable, future-proof education.
The principle of sovereign agility aims to design (higher) education in such a way that (higher) education organisations can confidently meet development requirements and changes from both inside and outside, thus managing complexity in an agile manner and with appropriate quality. This applies both to the mode of exploitation (optimisation and efficiency of existing processes) and to that of exploration (new and innovative). An agile educational organisation is characterised by flexibility, adaptability and a continuous willingness to learn and improve. Agility makes it possible to react quickly and effectively to new challenges while maintaining stable and efficient processes. Agile collaboration in the individual educational organisation relies on agile values, as integrated in the AAEL values.
Social responsibility and educational mission
The AAEL framework addresses education in a comprehensive manner and higher education in particular. Social responsibility also means a long-term commitment to sustainable educational processes and the willingness to critically reflect on the effects of one’s own actions. And this applies to all three areas of higher education: personal development, labour market orientation and the acquisition of specialist knowledge and skills. It is therefore relevant how higher education institutions can do justice to their social and organization-specific educational missions by designing framing structural, spatial, legal, social or communicative environments that strengthen democratic principles in action.
This includes enabling diverse forms of learning, skills acquisition and opportunities for education. Therefore, education here addresses both the obvious micro level of teaching design and development, as well as the design of institutional and organizational framework conditions for various forms of education in the form of courses, programmes or degree programmes, as well as experimental spaces at the meso level of the organization. These are linked to formal, structural and own organizational changes at the level of the educational organization or institution itself in its social context. Particularly with regard to social challenges and modern developments, political design options at the macro level and, with a view to openness, technological development and sustainability, a global perspective are also increasingly relevant for AAEL when it comes to social responsibility.
The principle of social responsibility and the educational mission aims to shape the framework conditions for (higher) education in such a way that they promote personal development and the assumption of social responsibility as well as enabling more fundamental educational tasks to be fulfilled. Education contributes to the development of a critical, value-based and democratic society. A strategically meaningful orientation through a shared vision for networked (higher) education strengthens the understanding of an educational mission that shapes values and principles for action.
Integrated leadership in (higher) education
People who are willing and able to take on leadership in the sense of the AAEL framework act, among other things, with a coaching attitude in order to support and inspire individuals, groups or teams and encourage them to take on responsibility. Such an integrative, participative leadership culture can contribute to continuous development and collaborative engagement and comprehensively strengthen higher education, both to meet the complex and dynamic demands of modern society and to continue to develop together in a creative way.
Accordingly, elements of lateral and servant leadership as as distributed and co-leadership have their place in this integrated perspective. Leadership in the AAEL framework therefore means, as integrated leadership, a synthesis of different transformational leadership approaches in order to consciously combine elements with one another and use them to guide action within this framework.
The principle of integrated leadership in education aims to shape leadership in higher education as a variant of transformational leadership. In terms of participation and self-organization, this includes both the flexibility and adaptability of agile leadership as well as the simultaneous optimization and innovation of ambidextrous leadership. In order to integrate the ability to act in the in-between, an overarching leadership culture is needed that equally promotes the personal responsibility and self-organization of all actors and enables a bridge to be built between leadership in traditional and modern organizational structures.
Six principles as guidelines for AAEL practice
Taken together, the AAEL framework is (currently) based on six principles for jointly shaping the practice of future higher education. These six AAEL principles are directly linked to the AAEL values and help to ensure that the value-based attitude in dynamic educational environments can be translated into concrete action across all levels. They help to act both stably and flexibly and to remain capable of acting in the in-between, to drive innovation and at the same time to value proven processes.
Whether at the level of individual courses, entire faculties or cross-institutional collaborations, the principles provide guidance for pursuing shared goals in (higher) education while preserving space for experimentation and cooperative and collaborative learning. With an integrated understanding of leadership and a clear set of values, (higher) education in the post-digital age can be shaped in such a way that it not only becomes more adaptable, but also more sustainable and more humane.
In order to make these considerations easier to understand in the following practical explanations, the next section describes a constructed fictitious example of the Learning University (LU short) with fictitious people, structures and possible practices as anchors. This example is later described in more detail in the AAEL PlayBook along the elements of the AAEL framework. The fictitious and sometimes idealized example is intended to help put one’s own university in relation to it and to provide food for thought and occasions for reflection or suggestions for classification for one’s own corresponding areas, processes or topics and roles.
Due to the current situation and in order to enable a clear identification with the questions that LU and its stakeholders have to and will have to face in the short and medium term, the topic of “AI in education” is woven into the examples.
Part III
Learning University (LU). A fictitious example organization, its actors and its AAEL practice
In the following, exemplary situations are outlined across the micro, meso and macro levels of higher education and these linked to AAEL principles as examples. All situations are fictitious occasions and conversations inspired by observations and discussions on the topic of AI in higher education from the current public professional debate. They were contextualized and transferred to specific locations in a fictitious university. The LU does not represent an existing university and is a purely fictitious example. 13
- How are students, lecturers, administrative staff and the university management dealing with the rapid developments in the field of AI?
- What content-related discussion of AI for education is taking place where and with whom?
- Where are critical doubts important, where is pragmatism appropriate and how do the developments fit in with the Learning University’s mission statement?
- Where are changes necessary, where do they make sense and where not for the time being?
- What is the balance between tradition and innovation?
Imagine this (fictitious) institution and get involved with it briefly …
The fictitious learning journey of the Learning University (LU)
The Learning University (LU) is a medium-sized, research-oriented university with around 28,000 students and a broad portfolio of subjects. Values such as openness, diversity and sustainability as well as a commitment to education in a culture of digitality, which is constantly evolving in the course of the digital transformation, are already anchored in the mission statement. And a living culture is developing towards this.
In recent semesters, one central topic has come to the fore: “Artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education”. Between a spirit of optimism and skepticism, those involved are observing, testing and discussing the new possibilities of generative language models in the context of teaching, research as well as administration, communication and management. Some are immediately on fire, others are trying out the latest tool as usual, others are still hesitant – sometimes fascinated, sometimes worried.
Another month full of excitement and new beginnings
Come with us to the Learning University campus. As soon as you enter the area with its open-looking buildings, green spaces and places to linger or study, you will feel a joyful energy: teachers and students naturally exploring the latest AI tools, lively discussions about new research results and seminars – and information monitors displaying the latest developments in the field of AI as well as places for quiet work and undisturbed participation in online formats.
In the “Open Space” of the university management (macro level)
In one of the buildings, principal Eva Adams looks at parts of the upcoming monthly agenda:
- AI sprints: Short phases in which interdisciplinary teams test and critically scrutinize new AI applications.
- Retro-Lab: An open forum in which deans, students, teaching support staff and professors as well external partners can discuss the use of AI, ethics and organizational development.
- Open Vision Forum: A series of events to which external partners are also invited to discuss future-oriented higher education.
- Ambidextrie4me Circle: A format in which four to five people master their own challenges over twelve weeks in a circle through collegial peer-to-peer coaching.
She smiles slightly. “We as management are also learners. The Learning University lives up to its name – we have to constantly reorient ourselves and learn with everyone – and pay attention to what makes us and will make us what we are.”
AAEL principles of action: Social responsibility and educational mission/values-based action for sustainable higher education
Rector Adams sees the agenda not only as an organizational plan, but also as an expression of a set of values: courage, openness, reflection, responsibility. LU should not only efficiently integrate AI into its structures in the sense of digitalization, but also do so in a way that is in line with its understanding of education.
In the “idea space”: reflection and change of perspective (meso level)
One floor below, the Digital Innovation team pushes open the door to the “Ideas Room”. Teachers, students and administrative staff gather here — including Dean Prof. Dr. Leonie Hansen from the Faculty of Humanities and Cultural Studies. The focus here is on structural discussions about teaching and examination formats in faculties and administration.
Marisa from the University Didactics team is moderating today and welcomes the group: “Welcome to our first meeting this month. We want to integrate AI responsibly and boldly into teaching and administration – but the tried and tested remains important. Who has ideas for the first sprint?“
Dean Hansen interjects:
“AI is definitely controversial in my faculty, but I want to build bridges. We should try out what AI can do for us instead of just judging from afar.“
A student representative suggests allowing generative AI in term papers, but with clear labeling.
Kai Müller, a member of staff at the examinations office, raises his head:
“Just a reminder: there are rules. Anyone who wants to change them is welcome to apply. In triplicate.”
Alex Dejavu, a lecturer in philosophy, frowns: “But what about the originality of student texts? Do we still teach them to think for themselves? Are we still developing personalities?”
Noa Bing, engineer, opens the tablet:
“Do we really want to discuss text aesthetics while the industry has long since been accepting AI-generated system documentation? As long as the electricity flows and the facts are correct, I don’t care who writes the text.”
Aylin Brem, business administration professor, smiles coolly in agreement:
“Competitiveness starts with output. And that is higher if you can make optimum use of all available resources.” And Samir Boum, student representative, leans back:
“AI in term papers? Long since everyday life. A general reference to the autonomy to write the paper should be enough by now”. “If we no longer have to talk about analog or digital, but about education in the post-digital age – what rules do we need?“
asks a professor of linguistics.
Hansen pauses after the meeting:
What if we look back in ten years and realize that we asked the wrong questions today?
This moment illustrates the AAEL principle of integrated leadership: changes are jointly supported by many stakeholders and not dictated from above alone.
This self-doubt is not just a personal experience — it runs through the Learning University. Dealing with AI not only changes what students learn, but also how teachers understand their role.
In the seminar: Doing and being with AI (micro level)
In the very first week, a young lecturer, Dr. Ayla Schäfer, holds a course in educational science in which she presents a generative AI system. Essays on educational theories can be created with just a few keywords — sometimes accurately, sometimes with errors.
Experience of the students:
Some are delighted that they quickly receive rough drafts for term papers; others stumble over inaccuracies in the content.
- Learning process:
Ayla has the students check the essays together for plausibility and sources. “We are not learning to blindly adopt AI here, but to understand it as a tool. You have to question it and be able to decide whether and how the results should be enriched.” - Students’ perspective:
AI is seen as a sparring partner, as a tutor for the many questions that would otherwise not be asked – and in one or two group projects as another member of the team.
After just a few seminar dates, an open and agile learning atmosphere becomes apparent: fast feedback loops, the courage to make mistakes and critical thinking when using new technologies and understanding their scope beyond a tool.
AAEL principle of action: Post-digitality as a matter of course
The discussion in the seminar room clearly shows that digitality is no longer an additional aspect, but an omnipresent condition. AI is no longer just a new topic – it is part of education in all its breadth. Students and lecturers are no longer discussing whether AI should be integrated, but rather how it can be integrated in a compatible way that also takes into account the critical aspects of AI. LU recognizes that it is not about an artificial separation between analogue and digital teaching – but about enabling education in digitality and, of course, designing environments for learning in a profoundly mediatized world shaped by mediality.
AAEL principle of action: Value-based action for sustainable higher education
The discussion in the room also shows that value orientation begins directly with cooperation in learning groups or teams. The LU is strengthening participative learning formats in order to bring students into cooperation and collaboration in a targeted manner – to learn together socially and professionally.
While lecturers and students are already intensively discussing new learning formats in the Ideas Room and making AI a topic in seminars, it is becoming clear at a structural level that formal processes are also needed for fundamental changes. Here, too, the question of AI and its significance for higher education inevitably takes center stage.
In the Faculty Council: AI as an impetus for structural change (meso level)
In the second week of the semester, the Faculty Council of Economics will hold its first meeting of the semester. Dean Prof. Dr. Henrik Meissner has prepared an agenda that deals with budget issues and a new concept for attracting (international) students. But before the meeting really begins, a group of students speaks up.
Student Jana: “We want our business and economics courses to finally spend more time on future skills – data literacy, project management with AI tools and so on. The learning concepts feel outdated!“
Student Leon adds: “It’s not just about technical aspects. Agile working methods, critical reflection on AI and sustainability are also topics that will affect us later in our careers. Why doesn’t anyone teach us that?“
Professor Schreiber also has her say. “We are discussing this here, but the real questions remain: What examination formats do we need in the future? Can we still rely on fixed curricula at all? Should all faculties launch the first pilot projects for new examination formats in the coming semesters?“
The dean is visibly surprised. He looks around at the council members, who appear unsettled: some shrug their shoulders uncertainly, others hastily take notes. A mixture of weariness, caution and a spirit of optimism spreads through the room. He clears his throat: “Thank you for your openness. I can’t promise that we’ll change everything straight away, but we’re taking this really seriously.”
And a moment later, he seizes the moment and poses the question to the group: “We need to make a decision – should we, as the Faculty of Business, launch pilot projects for new learning and examination formats in the coming semesters?” After an in-depth debate, the faculty makes a landmark decision: from the coming semester, more examination formats in the Bachelor’s degree courses are to be piloted as open-format examinations. In addition, a cross-faculty advisory committee will be set up to develop contemporary university-wide examination formats with guidelines for the skills-based use of AI in teaching.
After the meeting, several council members remain standing. Words such as “pace of change”, “self-doubt” and “can we manage it all?” can be heard in the corridor. They sense that a jolt could go through the faculty – the only question is whether it will be consistent enough.
Meissner sums up: “Perhaps the students are right. Perhaps we need to fundamentally rethink our way of thinking. Not just individual methods, but our entire idea of what higher education means in the digital age.
AAEL principle of action: bridging the duality of exploration and exploitation
Dean Meissner is surprised, but he recognizes the core of the problem: exploration and exploitation are not in balance. His faculty has relied on tried and tested methods – but now it’s time to try new approaches. At the LU, decision-making processes on the design of new curricula, examination formats and learning formats are being actively initiated in the faculties.
In the AI lab: experiments and piloting (micro and meso level)
In the third week, a wide variety of pilot projects will come together in the Learning University’s AI Lab. The AI Lab offers agile experimental spaces for new teaching and learning concepts that could later be implemented university-wide. Computer scientists are working on an automated feedback tool, economists want to develop an AI-based business game on the topic of corporate management, and Dean Hansen reports on humanities seminars in which AI initiates the analysis of literary texts.
Stakeholders: In addition to members of the Digital Innovation team such as Marisa and individual students, there are lecturers with various specializations as well as people who help shape teaching with their expertise in legal and administrative issues. The question of suitable forms of assessment and learning objectives in the age of AI is increasingly taking center stage.
The consequences of the previous Faculty Council debate are now becoming visible: Dean Meissner appears, visibly thoughtful: “Our students have shaken us up in the Faculty of Business. Could we perhaps organize a workshop in the AI Lab in which we work together to develop sustainable learning concepts?“
While a lively discussion about the opportunities of new technologies emerges in one corner, there are also clearly different emotional reactions to the far-reaching changes brought about by AI. Some of the participants reacted spontaneously, others thoughtfully – demonstrating the full range of reactions that accompany major changes at universities: Marisa from the Digital Innovation team states, “I didn’t expect the changes brought about by AI to come so quickly and comprehensively. A lot of things feel like a major upheaval. How are we supposed to keep up with this pace?”
Prof. Dr. Maria Kramer, social scientist, is critical: “I don’t think we should unleash these AI tools on our students unfiltered. This dilutes our academic standards and destroys the quality of teaching in the long term!“
An administrative employee adds, visibly irritated: “I simply don’t understand why we should now completely turn tried and tested processes on their head. That worries me – is all this really necessary?“
A young lecturer from the humanities seems insecure: “I often feel overwhelmed by the rapid changes. How am I supposed to keep up? On the other hand, I can see how curious and open the students are – maybe I just have to get involved, but I’m worried about being left behind professionally.“
The business administration professor, who was initially skeptical, is increasingly signaling openness: “I was afraid of being left behind by AI. But I can now see that we need to develop together. I’m beginning to understand that there are real opportunities here.“
The young educational scientist Dr. Ayla Schäfer seems enthusiastic: “I already see AI as an integral part of my teaching and learning. These tools give me space for deeper didactic considerations and allow me to have more personal contact with my students.“
It is precisely this diversity and openness of reactions that show that LU is on an authentic path – change is not imposed, but rather shaped together through emotional and social exchange.
The different people and their perspectives come together here in an open space. It is precisely in this tension that it becomes clear that change is not linear, but is experienced at different speeds and emotional intensities. With a constructive joint reaction, mutual understanding grows – and the insight that the way forward can only be shaped together.
Agile coaches specifically support the reflection of emotional reactions and shape the cooperation between different positions.
After several tests and intensive discussions, the participants decide that agile principles should be adopted at the LU not only in the AI Lab, but as a standard for project development throughout the university, because they enable a joint step-by-step learning process: “We should work together to develop clearer ideas of how agile processes can be implemented not only selectively, but also anchored in the long term and institutionally.”
AAEL principle of action: Sovereign agility in the education sector
How can universities be organized in such a way that they not only react to change, but actively shape it? It’s about practicing agility – with a stable foundation, room for emotions and for many courageous steps.
In the retro labs (micro, meso and macro level)
Parallel to this, Retro Labs are running throughout the month, in which Rector Dr. Eva Adams and Chancellor Dr. Uwe Hinz regularly engage in a joint exchange with all stakeholders and suitable external partners – both stakeholders and Critical Friends – with a view to long-term goals and visions for current development projects.
Topics: Data protection, plagiarism protection, ethical questions about AI, but also new opportunities for international exchange. And also the discussion of accessibility for all students to data protection-compliant AI offerings based on generative language models and the question of the need for open and freely accessible language models for education.
Format: Short, iterative meetings in which impressions from the ongoing teams are collected. Individual working groups – such as the AI Lab – can then continue to test specific solutions.
Repercussions: The Faculty of Business and Economics in particular is now increasingly contributing new ideas to modernize teaching content. The self-doubt from the Faculty Council meeting is giving way to initial, pragmatic ideas for reforming module plans.
AAEL principle of action: Sovereign agility in the education sector
The university management asks: “How can we organize ourselves in such a way that we not only react to changes, but actively shape them?” This will be one of the key questions for the future of LU.
In the Open Vision Forum: Reaching the goal together – and yet on a continuous journey (macro level)
Towards the end of this month – our fictitious observation period – the first Open Vision Forum will take place. This is about the joint strategic and social positioning of the university in dealing with AI and post-digitality. The participants will present their experiences, findings, results and ideas:
- A revised AI guideline was created thanks to feedback from seminars (micro level), the AI lab (meso level) and the retro labs (macro level).
- Students proudly point out their contributions, such as the initiative to modernize teaching in the Faculty of Economics.
- Chancellor Dr. Hinz encourages everyone to continue to get involved in the process of digital transformation of administrative processes, for example as a stakeholder for the next review meeting for legal issues in open book examinations.
The Open Vision Forum makes it clear that universities around the world are facing the same questions. The internationalization strategy will be supplemented by a decision to strengthen partnerships with international universities in order to jointly develop knowledge about AI, ethics and education with a global perspective and social responsibility. In this respect, the Open Vision Forum not only leads to internal clarification of the university strategy, but also provides impetus for international networking. In cooperation with partner universities, the LU is launching a transnational working group to address ethical standards for the use of open source AI in higher education. The aim is to exchange information on the respective practices and practices and to develop internationally compatible strategies in order to further develop (higher) education in a responsible and technologically sovereign manner.
In the concluding discussion, Dean Hansen once again recalled her initial doubts: “We don’t know whether we are already asking the right questions today. But it is important that we dare to ask new questions at all – we will definitely have learned from this!”
AAEL principle of action: Social responsibility and educational mission
LU recognizes that AI is not just an internal issue – but a question of social responsibility.
Dean Meissner speaks up again: “In the Faculty Council, we have realized that we have to move. Our students are right – we need to renew our learning concepts. Thank you for finding common ground here.“
Rector Evers sums up: “We didn’t want a closed catalog of measures, but to start a process. AI is just one example of how agility and ambidexterity challenge and inspire us. We prove to ourselves every day that this can only work together.”
AAEL principle of action: Integrated leadership in education
Transformation needs shared leadership – not just from the top, but from the middle of the university.
Four weeks learning journey: Reflection, emotion and insight
Over the course of these four weeks, very different feelings emerge:
Enthusiasm:
Students and teachers alike praise the new tools as inspiring, as they allow them to concentrate more on strategic and creative aspects.
Concern:
Some teachers fear a loss of quality or have data protection concerns and emphasize the foreseeable loss of competence for themselves and students.
Self-doubt:
Members of the Business Faculty Council recognize that old routines are no longer enough.
Confidence:
Dean Hansen summarizes after four weeks: “We have tried out a lot and found even more questions. We are on the move – and that’s a good thing!”
Curiosity:
In an educational science seminar, a student says: “Our generation not only wants to use AI tools, but also wants to understand what values and skills we need to use them responsibly.”
The experiences from the AI Sprints, the AI Lab, the Circle Meetings and the Retro Labs have made it clear how important it is to strike a balance between the tried and tested and the new. And that sustainable change in a system as traditional as education and universities can come from within. The critical questions surrounding ethics, quality, access and didactics are also being rolled out further. AI is a current and important example of this because it is so contradictory between enabling and controlling, between openness and commerce and much more. And so the topic of AI in the broader sense will foreseeably remain an occasion for transformation in order to critically question and position ourselves as a university in the post-digital age.
Outlook: The fictional learning journey continues
Thus, this first insight into the fictitious month of an AAEL learning journey ends with the AAEL framework in the Learning University’s own higher education practice using the example of the AI topic.
What already becomes clear in this framing story: With ambidexterity, agility and a post-digital perspective, the fictitious Learning University begins its journey into the future here – and actively helps to shape it. Because sustainable change in universities can only come from within. Everyone is called upon to play their part in continuous development – a real learning journey.
For the Learning University, the learning journey now continues in the AAEL PlayBook. This means that the LU selects individual elements of the AAEL framework, explores them in greater depth with its stakeholders using specific methods and tests them in practice. The AAEL PlayBook follows the basic idea of change in loop mode14 and refers to the story of the fictitious example of the Learning University.
Last update on 04/04/2025 (Changelog)
- see in more detail in the in-depth chapter under: https://agile-educational-leadership.de/v1/agilitaet‑1 – 0/ ↩︎
- Tangram game: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangram ↩︎
- For more details on agility and agility in the education sector, see the corresponding in-depth chapter here in the AAEL Book 1.0 athttps://agile-educational-leadership.de/v1/agilitaet‑1 – 0/ ↩︎
- For more detailed information on forms of personal and organizational ambidexterity, see the corresponding in-depth chapter here in the AAEL Book 1.0 at https://agile-educational-leadership.de/v1/ambidextrie‑1/ ↩︎
- For more details on agility and agility in the education sector, see the corresponding in-depth chapter here in the AAEL Book 1.0 athttps://agile-educational-leadership.de/v1/agilitaet‑1 – 0/ ↩︎
- For more details on the focus on education and its relevance to future-oriented capacity to act in times of change, see the corresponding in-depth chapter here in the AAEL Book 1.0 at https://agile-educational-leadership.de/v1/wieso-educational-oder-bildung-matters‑1/ ↩︎
- For more details on the relationship between management and leadership as well as forms of leadership, see the corresponding in-depth chapter here in AAEL Book 1.0 at https://agile-educational-leadership.de/v1/leadership‑1/ ↩︎
- See: Laloux, F. (2015). Reinventing Organizations: Ein Leitfaden zur Gestaltung sinnstiftender Formen der Zusammenarbeit. München: Vahlen. DOI: 10.15358/9783800649143 ↩︎
- In line with the form in which the Scrum Guide (https://scrumguides.org/index.html) is created, the AAEL framework, in addition to its version-based further development, is based on the concept of a kind of ‘rules of the game’ in order to set limits to any adjustments. ↩︎
- Tangram game: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangram ↩︎
- Central principles for the AAEL framework are described based on the Agile Manifesto (https://agilemanifesto.org/iso/de/principles.html). ↩︎
- For more information on forms of ambidexterity, see the chapter https://agile-educational-leadership.de/v1/ambidextrie‑1/#ambidextrie ↩︎
- I would like to take this opportunity to thank team member KItty (aka GPT 4.5), who provided me with valuable and efficient sparing moments when I was working on the examples — and who didn’t get impatient when I was repeatedly checking the consistency of the many individual elements and supported me without fatigue during the final text corrections 😉 ↩︎
- Cf. among others the Berkana Two Loop Model by Margaret Wheatley and Deborah Frieze for the emergence of change in living social systems: https://berkana.org/resources/pioneering-a-new-paradigm/ and see in more detail in the in-depth chapter on change and organizations (coming soon). ↩︎
