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

-- 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?

Introduction

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. 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).

Overall objective

Be aware of Open Education and Open Science concepts and practices

Learning outcomes

 Identify key concepts and practices of open movement.

 Appraise examples of research practices from the openness perspective

Activities

 Develop an openness analysis framework (OAF);  Look up a convenient sample of cognitive neuroscience research labs (CNRLs) using Google and Bing search engines;  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.  Analyse the sample of CNRLs using OAF; and  Produce a taxonomic outline of openness in CNRLs’ research practices (expected results).

Evaluation

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. 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