Talk:CAS Digital Learning in Emergencies (2022-23)/module4-Taam: Difference between revisions

The educational technology and digital learning wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
==  -- [[User:Taam|Taam]] ([[User talk:Taam|talk]]) 21:11, 22 December 2022 (CET) ==
==  -- [[User:Taam|Taam]] ([[User talk:Taam|talk]]) 21:11, 22 December 2022 (CET) ==


The page is redone.
Thanks!


== Introduction ==
== BC 23.12.2022 ==
Research is considered an arena of science. Research, on the other hand, does not start from scratch, neither does it start by uneducated people. The research is initiated from knowledge acquired by researchers in school and university, i.e. through education. At the same time, research produces knowledge for learners and instructors in school and university, that is for education. Thus, it is a continuum in which education leads to science and science serves education.
Dear Tawfik,
As put by Inserm, “beginning from what is already known [education], scientists ask questions, construct hypotheses, and develop experiments that will generate new knowledge [education]” (Inserm, 2021).
Thank you for updating your project. Here are some additional comments:
1) Developing the OAF is a great idea. To do this, you can either conduct a quick literature review or read at least the following texts: i) the UNESCO Open Science recommendations; ii) Deimann 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7740-2_5 ; iii) https://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Open_Education . 
2) In your table, when it is a little open, you may want to add some criteria (e.g. OER available).
3) It would be good also to search for one OER (no matter the granularity) in the domain of cognitive neuroscience and apply the OAF to this specific resource. This will force you to think Openness in an Open world and not only in a closed or semi-closed one.  
4) After you have read the UNESCO Open Science recommendations, you may want to broaden up your introduction, i.e. including communities, citizens', etc.  
Best


== Overall objective ==
== Introduction redone -- [[User:Taam|Taam]] ([[User talk:Taam|talk]]) 12:18, 4 January 2023 (CET) ==
Be aware of Open Education and Open Science concepts and practices


== Learning outcomes ==
The literature review has taken a while and taught me a lot. As a result, I the introduction could have been enlarged too much for the purpose of the page. Therefore, I've kept its size and content within the limits of time and that purpose.
 Identify key concepts and practices of open movement.


 Appraise examples of research practices from the openness perspective
I'll have to move now to the practical part and do the OAF and analysis that will miss deadline for your feedback.


== Activities ==
However, I'd appreciate your feedback about the introduction.
 Develop an openness analysis framework (OAF);
Thanks!
==BC 04.01.2023==
Dear Tawfik,
Thank you for updating your page: I particularly appreciate your introductory paragraph on OE where it shows that you have made yours a certain number of resources. I also appreciate that you put the emphasis of open movements on sharing.
Please find below some comments to improve your page:
- introduction to your page: imagine someone surfing on the internet and arriving on your page without knowing anything about CAS DLE, your project, who you are, etc. Try to provide some title for your project, some information on your aims, who you are (e.g. a link to your linkedin page is enough), etc.
- For the title, you may want to narrow down to neuroscience labs ?
- In the "Open a little: Only contents or publications are shared", you may want to change it to only parts of content and/or publications are shared`?
- in the table, when the information is not available, mention it instead of leaving it blank!
- Add a conclusion? I would suggest you add a conclusion to your page, explaining what you think of your findings and, as a potential student of such a lab, which one attracts you most and why. Or any other conclusion because the end of the page is a bit abrupt while the start was very developed.
Hope this helps,
Best


 Look up a convenient sample of cognitive neuroscience research labs (CNRLs) using Google and Bing search engines;
== Well noted. Thanks! -- [[User:Taam|Taam]] ([[User talk:Taam|talk]]) 12:04, 5 January 2023 (CET) ==


 List sample’s elements in a directory or catalogue form that can describe to others what each is about and guide them to how to reach out to it;
Very enlightening feedback.
Very well noted.
 Analyse the sample of CNRLs using OAF; and
This will be our task today and tonight.
Thank you!


 Produce a taxonomic outline of openness in CNRLs’ research practices (expected results).
== Just submitted. -- [[User:Taam|Taam]] ([[User talk:Taam|talk]]) 17:18, 6 January 2023 (CET) ==


== Evaluation ==
Dear Barbara,
The evaluation of OERs & OEPs found will depend on a rubric underpinned by the sharing value. Sharing comes at the heart of all openness values when it encompasses all components of the subject matter like objectives or purposes, contents, method (methodology), tools, results and documentation.
I have just finished the editing of the page.
Therefore, preliminarily, the rubric can look as follows:
 Fully open: All objectives or purposes, contents, method (methodology/pedagogy), tools, results and publications are publicly shared.
 Almost fully open: All parts of the system, but objectives/purposes, are shared.
 Quite open: Content, results and publications are shared.
 Open a little: Only contents or publications are shared.
 Virtually closed: Nothing shared, but some titles or links.
 Closed: Nothing shared other than the names or titles of research project.


For illustration, these are a few preliminary examples
In the task's submission page, I tried to paste the URL. But, there was no editor to allow me paste it. So, I uploaded a PDF copy of the page.
 
It was a very interesting Module. I, and other colleagues I think, have learnt a lot from it as well as from previous three Modules.
 
Thank you vey much!
Tawfiq
 
==BC 15.01.2023==
Dear Tawfiq,
Thank you for your engagement throughout the module. What you decided to undertake within this module makes fully sense. In the future, I would suggest that you not only add labs to your investigation but also finetune the OAF framework you developed. Openness is indeed a continuum (and not binary on/off) and such tools will be more and more used. You may want to have a look at this work and especially Table 1: https://ijsdir.sadl.kuleuven.be/index.php/ijsdir/article/view/468/425 . Small detail: I would not mention OEP in point 1.7 or explain how it comes into play.
Your findings are really thought provocative: have you looked whether those labs that are listed in your table produced for example MOOCs which they offer elsewhere and that were not taken into account? With regard to data sharing, usually it is done on specialised servers like Zenodo or OLOS. Projects are annotated on shared plateforms like https://web.hypothes.is/. What I mean is that your findings should maybe be nuanced because for now information is all over the place and not retrievable but actually exists. It is a big problem with OER in general as already discussed: how to retrieve OERs. (NB: you may want to check your page for typos)
Best

Latest revision as of 18:51, 15 January 2023

-- BarbaraClass (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2022 (CET)

Thank you Tawfiq for sharing your scenario. With regard to Openness, you focus only on the access part. What about openness at the epistemic level? What about collaborating to elaborate knowledge that is then freely accessible? The purpose of your learning in this module is clear but could you please design a complete scenario, with learning outcomes, activities and evaluation criteria, to achieve it? Are you for instance going to elaborate a rubric to evaluate the resources you find?

-- Taam (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2022 (CET)

The page is redone. Thanks!

BC 23.12.2022

Dear Tawfik, Thank you for updating your project. Here are some additional comments: 1) Developing the OAF is a great idea. To do this, you can either conduct a quick literature review or read at least the following texts: i) the UNESCO Open Science recommendations; ii) Deimann 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7740-2_5 ; iii) https://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Open_Education . 2) In your table, when it is a little open, you may want to add some criteria (e.g. OER available). 3) It would be good also to search for one OER (no matter the granularity) in the domain of cognitive neuroscience and apply the OAF to this specific resource. This will force you to think Openness in an Open world and not only in a closed or semi-closed one. 4) After you have read the UNESCO Open Science recommendations, you may want to broaden up your introduction, i.e. including communities, citizens', etc. Best

Introduction redone -- Taam (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2023 (CET)

The literature review has taken a while and taught me a lot. As a result, I the introduction could have been enlarged too much for the purpose of the page. Therefore, I've kept its size and content within the limits of time and that purpose.

I'll have to move now to the practical part and do the OAF and analysis that will miss deadline for your feedback.

However, I'd appreciate your feedback about the introduction. Thanks!

BC 04.01.2023

Dear Tawfik, Thank you for updating your page: I particularly appreciate your introductory paragraph on OE where it shows that you have made yours a certain number of resources. I also appreciate that you put the emphasis of open movements on sharing. Please find below some comments to improve your page: - introduction to your page: imagine someone surfing on the internet and arriving on your page without knowing anything about CAS DLE, your project, who you are, etc. Try to provide some title for your project, some information on your aims, who you are (e.g. a link to your linkedin page is enough), etc. - For the title, you may want to narrow down to neuroscience labs ? - In the "Open a little: Only contents or publications are shared", you may want to change it to only parts of content and/or publications are shared`? - in the table, when the information is not available, mention it instead of leaving it blank! - Add a conclusion? I would suggest you add a conclusion to your page, explaining what you think of your findings and, as a potential student of such a lab, which one attracts you most and why. Or any other conclusion because the end of the page is a bit abrupt while the start was very developed. Hope this helps, Best

Well noted. Thanks! -- Taam (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2023 (CET)

Very enlightening feedback. Very well noted. This will be our task today and tonight. Thank you!

Just submitted. -- Taam (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2023 (CET)

Dear Barbara, I have just finished the editing of the page.

In the task's submission page, I tried to paste the URL. But, there was no editor to allow me paste it. So, I uploaded a PDF copy of the page.

It was a very interesting Module. I, and other colleagues I think, have learnt a lot from it as well as from previous three Modules.

Thank you vey much! Tawfiq

BC 15.01.2023

Dear Tawfiq, Thank you for your engagement throughout the module. What you decided to undertake within this module makes fully sense. In the future, I would suggest that you not only add labs to your investigation but also finetune the OAF framework you developed. Openness is indeed a continuum (and not binary on/off) and such tools will be more and more used. You may want to have a look at this work and especially Table 1: https://ijsdir.sadl.kuleuven.be/index.php/ijsdir/article/view/468/425 . Small detail: I would not mention OEP in point 1.7 or explain how it comes into play. Your findings are really thought provocative: have you looked whether those labs that are listed in your table produced for example MOOCs which they offer elsewhere and that were not taken into account? With regard to data sharing, usually it is done on specialised servers like Zenodo or OLOS. Projects are annotated on shared plateforms like https://web.hypothes.is/. What I mean is that your findings should maybe be nuanced because for now information is all over the place and not retrievable but actually exists. It is a big problem with OER in general as already discussed: how to retrieve OERs. (NB: you may want to check your page for typos) Best

Retrieved from "https://edutechwiki.unige.ch/mediawiki/index.php?title=Talk:CAS_Digital_Learning_in_Emergencies_(2022-23)/module4-Taam&oldid=77663"