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

Openness in education and science: the case of research labs

Introduction

Education has never stopped accompanying humankind since it came into being. Only have its form, content, context and systematicity kept developing in diverse ways, from as simple as parents-child learning settings to very sophisticated systems seen in modern and recent histories of formal general and higher, non-formal and informal settings. Development towards more sophistication seems to have had been at the expense of the general public, leading to closed and elitist systems. Class (2022, p.2) traces back some reaction to such systems in people’s call for “public lectures on Dante” in 1373 in Florence in Italy, which heralded the birth of European universities. With time, population growth, development and sophistication never stop, which gives rise to more need for organisation and systemisation and more stress on resources. Logically, the balance will need then to reduce size of your targeting in order to reduce pressure on resources while continuing sophisticated development. In education, this meant its closure on fewer people, leaving many of them behind. For instance, higher education institutions “are, for the most part, closed or isolated systems,” (Moisey (1984, p. 14). This will continue for some time before people and societies feel its negative consequences and the drive to get up and call for openness, like calls for open learning. It was “[o]riginally intended to increase democratization of higher education in terms of respect for individual differences and equal opportunity, (Ibid, p. 5). Then came the calls for “open education” “during the 1960s and 1970s, [on the grounds of] heated political debates about the power of education over children took place and people like Freire lobbied for ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed’ (Deimann & Sloep, 2013, p. 18). With the turn of the century, the ‘open education’ movement continued. This time, “digital technology caused a revitalisation in the beginning of the 21st century […] in favour of the unrestricted proliferation of education for everybody around the globe,” (Ibid, p.18). As we entered the third decade of the century, the movement gained more momentum with more ‘openness’ terms coined. “Open Access, Open Content, Open Courses, Open Data, Open Design, Open Knowledge, Open Learning, Open License, Open Scholarship, Open Source, Open Standards, Open Teaching and Open Universities are given as examples of evolving-adaptive open approaches,” (Werth & Williams, 2022, p.5). International organisations and known universities like UNESCO and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Oxford University, for example, have emerged to endorse the ‘openness’ in education as well as science. Free online course materials (OpenCourseWare) and open GigaScience journal are practical endorsements by the two education and science institutions. As to UNESCO, following a number of international conferences, it issued two “Recommendations” of Open Educational Resources (OER) in 2019 (UNEXCO, 2022) and Open Science in 2021 (UNESCO, 2021). With more newcomers into the movement comes higher terminological debate. The two UNSECO’s Recommendations have helped defining ‘openness,’ there still questions that are yet to be settled. According to class 92022, p. 5), “the question remains: where should scholars put emphasis today? On the “Open” aspect? On the “Education” aspect? On “Open Education” as a construct and potential means of renewing education?” Atkins (2007) sees answers to this and similar questions in the future. To him, “[o]penness” is complex and not a black-and-white issue—a spectrum of degrees of resource openness is developing. The future holds opportunities and challenges for enriching and exploiting this spectrum,” (p. 28). We are not going to engage into such debate due the limite, practical purpose of this paper, as will be presented below. It should suffice for this purpose to add that research is 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 in what Class (2022) describe as "knowledge society." 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).

Edu-Sci Continuum

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.

Method

The paper will explore how a convenient sample of research (neuroscience) labs are open. ‘Open’ here can operationally be defined as in the shown in the Openness Assessment Framework below.

The sample will be those labs returned from search using the main Internet search engines of Google and MS Bing to search for cognitive neuroscience research labs. It is a scientific field that should have no security and financial implications that may justify access restrictions.

Methodological procedures will include the following:

• 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;
• Assess the sample of CNRLs using OAF; and
• Produce a taxonomic outline of openness in CNRLs’ research practices (expected result).

Openness Assessment Framework

To analyse and assess the degree of openness in an educational and science resource and practice, while the ‘openness’ conception is evolving, will be a risky task. However, for the sole purpose of this page, this framework of analysis and assessment of ‘openness’ will build on what Atkins (2007 calls “the fundamental components of education—content and tools for teaching, learning, and research,” which actually is in line with definition of OER Recommendation by UNESCO (2022). Thus, the framework will not go deeper into data, sources codes, preprints as suggested by PLOS (2022), data FAIR principles cited by Edmunds et al. (2022), nor the metadata, software and hardware in the Open Science Recommendation of UNESCO (2021). These things go beyond the scope, capacity and time of this paper. There are also things in the openness literature that cannot be assessed without putting openness’ indicators to the test like the criteria of re-use, repurpose, adaptation, redistribution and reproducibility in addition to some of the Wiley’s (2014) 5R (retain, reuse, revise, remix, and redistribute) cited by Werth and Williams (2022, p.6). In the end, openness will remain “complex and not a black-and-white issue,” but “a spectrum of degrees of resource openness” whose future “holds opportunities and challenges for [its] enriching and exploiting,” according to Atkins (2007, p. 28).

As a result, my analysis and assessment framework will select for the time being the following indicators:

• Access: Accessing an OER will mean it is also shareable and transparent. Then access here covers two additional criteria which are transparency and sharing.
• OER: The OER here will mean the “content and tools of learning, teaching and research, as referred to by Atkins (2007) to be “fundamental” and by UNESCO (2022, p. 5) to be “in any format or medium.”
• 'Research project: This should cover what UNESCO (2021) Open Science Recommendation termed as “the entire research cycle, from formulation of hypothesis, development and testing of methodologies, data collection, analysis, management and storage, peer review and other evaluation and verification methods, to analysis, reflection and interpretation, sharing and confrontation of ideas and results, communication, distribution and uptake, and use and re-use,” (p. 30). However, this is a long process that is beyond the time and scope of this assignment. Thus, the focus of this framework will be on OER of the research project available on a project’s public webpage like publications and description/presentation of its results or product/s. This OER will include data if available.

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

Illustrative Application of Evaluation Rubric

Openness Level	Home	Unit	Lab	Publications	Projects
Open a little	Arizona State University	Dept of Psychology	Decision Neuroscience Laboratory	Has access links to full articles	Only titles
Virtually closed			Learning and Development Lab	Links to journals, but no access	Only titles
Open a little			Memory and Attention Control Lab	Has access links to full articles	Only titles
Quite open	University of Missouri	School of Medicine	Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory	Refers to government medicine library with almost all full articles are accessible	Shows progress and results of research (see example)
Closed	Boston Children's Hospital	Laboratories of Cognitive Neuroscience	The Wilkinson Laboratory for early language acquisition and cognition	No reference to any.	No reference to any.
Closed			The Nelson Laboratory for brain and behaviour development in infants and children	No reference to any	No reference to any.

Bibliography

1. Cadwallader, L.; Morton, L.; and Hrynaszkiewic, I. (2022). Explore the first Open Science Indicators dataset—and share your thoughts. The Official PLOS Blog. Retrieved in January 2023 from: https://theplosblog.plos.org/2022/12/open-science-indicators-first-dataset/
2. Carrol, S.; Garbal, I; Figueroa-Rodríguez, O.; Holbrook, J.; Lovett, R.; Materechera, S.; Parsons, M.; Raseroka, K.; Rodriguez-Lonebear, D.; Rowe, R.; Sara, R.; Walker, J.; Anderson, J.; and Hudson, M. (2020). The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. Data Science Journal, 19: 43, 1–12. Retrieved in January 2023 from: https://datascience.codata.org/articles/10.5334/dsj-2020-043/.
3. Class, B. (2022). Revisiting Education: On the Role of Imagination, Intuition, and Other “Gifts” for Open Scholars. Frontiers in Education, 7:846882. Retrieved in January 2023 from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2022.846882/full
4. Daniel E. Atkins, D.; Brown, J.; and Hammond, A. (2007). A Review of the Open Educational Resources (OER) Movement: Achievements, Challenges, and New Opportunities. Report to The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Retrieved in January 2023 from: https://hewlett.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ReviewoftheOERMovement.pdf
5. Deimann, M., & Sloep, P. (2013). How does Open Education Work? Advances in Digital Education and Lifelong Learning, 1–23. Retrieved in December 2022 from: https://www.academia.edu/27268342/How_does_Open_Education_Work
6. Edmunds, S.; Zauner, H.; Nogoy, N.; Zgou, H.; Zhang, H.; and Goodman, L. (2022) A Decade of GigaScience: Milestones in Open Science. GigaScience, 11, 1-4. Retrieved in December 2022 from: https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/article-pdf/doi/10.1093/gigascience/giac067/44277186/giac067.pdf
7. Farrow, R. and Deimann, M. (2013). Rethinking OER and their use: open education as Bildung.International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3) pp. 344–360. Retrieved in January 2023 from: https://oro.open.ac.uk/36572/1/Deimann%20%26%20Farrow.pdf
8. Inserm (2021). Research continuum. Retrieved in December 2022 from: https://www.inserm.fr/en/our-research/research-continuum/.
9. Moisey, S. (1984). How “open” is open learning? Innovative Higher Education, 9(1), 5_18. Retrieved in January 2023 from: https://www.academia.edu/32169486/How_open_is_open_learning
10. UNESCO (2012). The Paris OER Declaration 2012. World Open Educational Resources (OER) Congress, UNESCO, Paris, June 20-22. Retrieved in December 2022 from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000246687
11. UNESCO (2021). UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. Parise, France: UNESCO. Retrieved in December 2022 from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949?posInSet=1&queryId=26b94f56-e225-4fbe-b5c2-54c6a8670d42
12. UNESCO (2022). The 2019 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Educational Resources (OER): Supporting universal access to information through quality open learning materials. Parise, France: UNESCO. Retrieved in December 2022 from: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000383205?posInSet=1&queryId=ca4923cc-674b-42b4-a88f-5d6b46e978e7
13. Werth, E., and Williams, K. (2022). The why of open pedagogy: a value-first conceptualization for enhancing instructor praxis. Smart Learning Environments, 9:10. Retrieved in January 2023 from: https://slejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40561-022-00191-0