Open Education: Difference between revisions

The educational technology and digital learning wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
== Introduction ==
== Introduction ==
Open Education (OE) is diverse and is related to many fields and domains, all having in common the “Open” aspect, cf. https://paulgstacey.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/landscapeofopenstacey.jpg .   
Open Education (OE) is an umbrella term as Open Science is. It is thus diverse and connected to many fields and domains, all having in common the “Open” aspect, cf. https://paulgstacey.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/landscapeofopenstacey.jpg .   


Understandings about "Open" is an on-going process and many conceptions are circulating.   
Understandings about "Openness" is an on-going process tackled from many perspectives.   


The purpose of this reflection is to share some thoughts about epistemologies that underly OE to better grasp its values and potentials. In this sense, it is directly related to academic research. 
== History of OE ==


An epistemology is a theory of knowledge in the sense of addressing two key questions directed to the nature and justification of knowledge (Bates, 2015, p. 44): 
== Reflection about potential underlying epistemologies of OE ==
* What is considered, within an academic discipline, valid knowledge?
=== Questioning the dominant model ===
* How is this knowledge created (i.e. why do we think something is valid knowledge)?
In other terms, “epistemology investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge” (P. Stacey, 2021, private communication).
 
== Questioning the dominant model ==
How academic knowledge was gained and research conducted in the recent past (approximately two centuries) is questioned today. It is questioned because it considers the dominant model of positivism – that advocates for objectivity and neutrality of knowledge to be generalised – as the sole valid one (Brière, Lieutenant-Gosselin & Piron, 2019).  Several research domains - e.g. social studies of sciences, history of sciences, decolonising studies – criticise it for conveying “institutional positivism” (Piron, 2019). The gaining interest of epistemic justice as a research and social topic is an example of this movement (e.g. Eve & Gray, 2020; Kidd, Medina & Pohlhaus, 2017) against prevalent scientific knowledge production models.  
How academic knowledge was gained and research conducted in the recent past (approximately two centuries) is questioned today. It is questioned because it considers the dominant model of positivism – that advocates for objectivity and neutrality of knowledge to be generalised – as the sole valid one (Brière, Lieutenant-Gosselin & Piron, 2019).  Several research domains - e.g. social studies of sciences, history of sciences, decolonising studies – criticise it for conveying “institutional positivism” (Piron, 2019). The gaining interest of epistemic justice as a research and social topic is an example of this movement (e.g. Eve & Gray, 2020; Kidd, Medina & Pohlhaus, 2017) against prevalent scientific knowledge production models.  


UNESCO (2020)’s recent Open Science draft definition is also very insightful in this respect. It stresses the importance of acknowledging the diversity of knowledge: “For the purposes of this Recommendation, ‘Open Science’ means a complex of at least the following key elements: Open Access, Open Data, Open Source/Software and Open Hardware, Open Science Infrastructures, Open Evaluation, Open Educational Resources, Open Engagement of Societal Actors, Openness to Diversity of Knowledge, Openness to Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Openness to all Scholarly Knowledge and Inquiry”.
UNESCO (2020)’s recent Open Science draft definition is also very insightful in this respect. It stresses the importance of acknowledging the diversity of knowledge: “For the purposes of this Recommendation, ‘Open Science’ means a complex of at least the following key elements: Open Access, Open Data, Open Source/Software and Open Hardware, Open Science Infrastructures, Open Evaluation, Open Educational Resources, Open Engagement of Societal Actors, Openness to Diversity of Knowledge, Openness to Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Openness to all Scholarly Knowledge and Inquiry”.


== Epistemologies available in research methods textbooks ==
=== Epistemologies available in research methods textbooks ===
Research method textbook commonly cite positivism, constructivism, the transformative view and pragmatism as the main epistemologies (e.g. Creswell & Cresswell, 2018). The transformative epistemological assumption gives centre stage to meaning of knowledge seen from diverse and multiple socio-economico-cultural-etc. lenses and power inequities (Mertens, 2017). The transformative paradigm gained increased interest in the last part of the XXth century and seeks to advance both a research and a societal agenda.  
Research method textbook commonly cite positivism, constructivism, the transformative view and pragmatism as the main epistemologies (e.g. Creswell & Cresswell, 2018). The transformative epistemological assumption gives centre stage to meaning of knowledge seen from diverse and multiple socio-economico-cultural-etc. lenses and power inequities (Mertens, 2017). The transformative paradigm gained increased interest in the last part of the XXth century and seeks to advance both a research and a societal agenda.  
Linguistically speaking, it is interesting to notice that the transformative worldview is the only epistemology commonly cited in textbooks that is not composed in an -ism form. -ism suffix “is used in the composition of words designating philosophical or political schools of thought. Many of these words were created in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to name the vast movements of ideas that built and accompanied these two centuries. Their radical can be an adjective (heliocentrism, chauvinism, colonialism), a common noun (anarchism, cubism, centrism), a proper noun (Gaullism, Darwinism, Marxism). ”
Linguistically speaking, it is interesting to notice that the transformative worldview is the only epistemology commonly cited in textbooks that is not composed in an -ism form. -ism suffix “is used in the composition of words designating philosophical or political schools of thought. Many of these words were created in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to name the vast movements of ideas that built and accompanied these two centuries. Their radical can be an adjective (heliocentrism, chauvinism, colonialism), a common noun (anarchism, cubism, centrism), a proper noun (Gaullism, Darwinism, Marxism). ”
Line 22: Line 18:
''This is our own translation of, “Le suffixe -isme est très productif. Il entre dans la composition de mots désignant des courants de pensée philosophiques ou politiques. Nombre de ces mots ont été créés aux dix-neuvième et vingtième siècles pour nommer les vastes mouvements d’idées qui ont bâti et accompagné ces deux siècles. Leur radical peut être un adjectif (héliocentrisme, chauvinisme, colonialisme), un nom commun (anarchisme, cubisme, centrisme), un nom propre (gaullisme, darwinisme, marxisme). L’abus de ce suffixe pour former des néologismes peu clairs témoigne le plus souvent de paresse dans la recherche de l’expression juste. » http://www.academie-francaise.fr/construction-en-isme''
''This is our own translation of, “Le suffixe -isme est très productif. Il entre dans la composition de mots désignant des courants de pensée philosophiques ou politiques. Nombre de ces mots ont été créés aux dix-neuvième et vingtième siècles pour nommer les vastes mouvements d’idées qui ont bâti et accompagné ces deux siècles. Leur radical peut être un adjectif (héliocentrisme, chauvinisme, colonialisme), un nom commun (anarchisme, cubisme, centrisme), un nom propre (gaullisme, darwinisme, marxisme). L’abus de ce suffixe pour former des néologismes peu clairs témoigne le plus souvent de paresse dans la recherche de l’expression juste. » http://www.academie-francaise.fr/construction-en-isme''


== Sociomateriality, epistemologies of the link and humanness ==
=== Sociomateriality, epistemologies of the link and humanness ===
Less well-known epistemologies - because they are considered to be part of one of the main above-mentioned families, because they are not Western-thinking-centred or for some other reasons may be interesting to understand underlying values of the Open paradigm. We particularly think of epistemologies related to the network which are largely used and accepted (e.g. actor network theory as stated by Callon, 2006; Latour, 2006). Epistemologies of the link (Piron, 2019) or epistemologies of Ubuntu, humanness (Nabudere, 2005; Ramose, 1999).  
Less well-known epistemologies - because they are considered to be part of one of the main above-mentioned families, because they are not Western-thinking-centred or for some other reasons may be interesting to understand underlying values of the Open paradigm. We particularly think of epistemologies related to the network which are largely used and accepted (e.g. actor network theory as stated by Callon, 2006; Latour, 2006). Epistemologies of the link (Piron, 2019) or epistemologies of Ubuntu, humanness (Nabudere, 2005; Ramose, 1999).  


Line 31: Line 27:
Epistemology of Ubuntu, translated as humanness, “suggests both a condition of being and the state of becoming, of openness or ceaseless unfolding”(Ramose, 2015, p. 69). Ubuntu considers “the universe as a complex wholeness involving the multi-layered and incessant interaction of all entities” (Ramose, 2015, p. 69) – human beings, physical or objective nature. The three driving insights of Ubuntu are: 1) constant motion of “wholes” from generation to death to regeneration; 2) human dignity; 3) mutual care and sharing between human beings and physical nature (Ramose, 2015).   
Epistemology of Ubuntu, translated as humanness, “suggests both a condition of being and the state of becoming, of openness or ceaseless unfolding”(Ramose, 2015, p. 69). Ubuntu considers “the universe as a complex wholeness involving the multi-layered and incessant interaction of all entities” (Ramose, 2015, p. 69) – human beings, physical or objective nature. The three driving insights of Ubuntu are: 1) constant motion of “wholes” from generation to death to regeneration; 2) human dignity; 3) mutual care and sharing between human beings and physical nature (Ramose, 2015).   


== From epistemologies to theories ==
=== From epistemologies to theories ===


From these epistemologies, theories engaging in totally new worldviews and opening new horizons for learning are (re)emerging. The main one is the theory of abundance. It moves away from scarcity and its keyword is “enough”. Enough open and quality networks, resources, institutions, etc. to learn from and be able to grow as a responsible citizen in a knowledge economy in all the places on earth (Caron, 2020; Hoeschele, 2010).  
From these epistemologies, theories engaging in totally new worldviews and opening new horizons for learning are (re)emerging. The main one is the theory of abundance. It moves away from scarcity and its keyword is “enough”. Enough open and quality networks, resources, institutions, etc. to learn from and be able to grow as a responsible citizen in a knowledge economy in all the places on earth (Caron, 2020; Hoeschele, 2010).  
Line 37: Line 33:
In terms of learning theories, those which are most used and related to abundance theory are probably i) experiential learning (Usher, 2018), ii) social theories of learning like communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 2018) and iii) multiple approaches to understanding (Gardner, 2018).
In terms of learning theories, those which are most used and related to abundance theory are probably i) experiential learning (Usher, 2018), ii) social theories of learning like communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 2018) and iii) multiple approaches to understanding (Gardner, 2018).


== Conjecturing: underlying epistemologies of the Open paradigm ==
=== Conjecturing: underlying epistemologies of the Open paradigm ===
My conjecture is that the Open paradigm, consciously or unconsciously, takes its roots in transformative epistemologies and in ''constructiveness''. We deliberately call it ''constructiveness''  and not constructivism in reference to the above-mentioned reflexion on -ism concepts and to Ramose (2015, p. 69)’s explanation: “It [humanness] is thus opposed to any -ism, including humanism, for this tends to suggest a condition of finality, a closedness or a kind of absolute either incapable of or resistant to any further movement”. In addition, ''constructiveness'' is derived from constructive and defined as 1) declared such by judicial construction or interpretation; 2) of or relating to construction or creation; 3) promoting improvement or development, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constructive   
My conjecture is that the Open paradigm, consciously or unconsciously, takes its roots in transformative epistemologies and in ''constructiveness''. We deliberately call it ''constructiveness''  and not constructivism in reference to the above-mentioned reflexion on -ism concepts and to Ramose (2015, p. 69)’s explanation: “It [humanness] is thus opposed to any -ism, including humanism, for this tends to suggest a condition of finality, a closedness or a kind of absolute either incapable of or resistant to any further movement”. In addition, ''constructiveness'' is derived from constructive and defined as 1) declared such by judicial construction or interpretation; 2) of or relating to construction or creation; 3) promoting improvement or development, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constructive   


Major technological advancements happened in the 1960s-70s-80s-90s, in part thanks to the free software movement. My conjecture is also that technology, such as the creation of the Internet in the 1960s and the world wide web in the 1990s (cf. https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-web) , permitted to revive an essential feature of scientific communities. Indeed, it is hardly known that scientific articles were public goods until the 1900s (Dulong de Rosnay & Langlais, 2017) and that scientific knowledge circulated freely beforehand. Thus, values of the free software movement, making free software a public good, converged with pre-existing values in scientific communities, resulting in open circulation of knowledge.  
Major technological advancements happened in the 1960s-70s-80s-90s, in part thanks to the free software movement. My conjecture is also that technology, such as the creation of the Internet in the 1960s and the world wide web in the 1990s (cf. https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-web) , permitted to revive essential features of scientific communities, i.e. transparency, freedom, sharing. Indeed, it is hardly known that scientific articles were public goods until the 1900s (Dulong de Rosnay & Langlais, 2017) and that scientific knowledge circulated freely beforehand. Thus, values of the free software movement, making free software a public good, converged with pre-existing values in scientific communities, resulting in open circulation of knowledge.  
It is not clear for me whether Internet is a public good today but originally it was created in that spirit. It is also acknowledged that the web opened a myriad of possibilities, it “became central to public access to the internet and also enabled the creation of a global knowledge network” (Harasim, 2017, p. 26).   
It is not clear whether Internet is a public good today but originally it was created in that spirit. It is also acknowledged that the web opened a myriad of possibilities, it “became central to public access to the internet and also enabled the creation of a global knowledge network” (Harasim, 2017, p. 26).   


Finally, let us keep in mind that it was in the late 90s that the Bologna reform was adopted in European higher education to build the knowledge society and the knowledge economy (Huisman, Adelman, Hsieh, Shams & Wilkins, 2012). It was also in those years that the Creative Commons project was being prepared to offer sustainable legal solutions to openly shared content. Finally, it was in those years that the free operating system Ubuntu was created and disseminated worldwide (cf. https://ubuntu.com/community/mission).  
Finally, let us keep in mind that it was in the late 90s that the Bologna reform was adopted in European higher education to build the knowledge society and the knowledge economy (Huisman, Adelman, Hsieh, Shams & Wilkins, 2012). It was also in those years that the Creative Commons project was being prepared to offer sustainable legal solutions to openly shared content. Finally, it was in those years that the free operating system Ubuntu was created and disseminated worldwide (cf. https://ubuntu.com/community/mission).  
Line 51: Line 47:


Concerning core teaching and learning activities, in accordance with Stacey (2018)’s roadmap, OE is discussed in terms of Open Educational Resources (OER) – how to produce, adopt and adapt them (Stracke, Downes, Conole, Burgos & Nascimbeni, 2019; Weller, Jordan, DeVries & Rolfe, 2018). In terms of OE practices, it is teaching openness (Nascimbeni, Burgos, Campbell & Tabacco, 2018) and conceptual perspectives (Cronin & Maclaren, 2018) which are discussed. Issues of open admission, open recognition, open assessment and open credentials are discussed at the theoretical level (Wiley, 2017) and at the cultural change level (Chiappe, Pinto & Arias, 2016). Return of concrete experiences are starting to be shared (García-Holgado, et al., 2020). Concerning quality, a first OE quality framework, in reference to ISO/IEC 40180, has been suggested (Stracke, 2019). At the strategic and leadership levels, major identified OE enablers are i) a clear policy priority assigned to open education; ii) an awareness-raising on open education, targeting leaders and educators; and iii) capacity-building in open education for educators and other stakeholders (Inamorato dos Santos, et al., 2017). Concerning technology, projects like QualiChain (cf. https://qualichain-project.eu/ ) work on smart open badges solutions  and a reflexion on technological compliant solutions is on-going (Coëtlogon, 2019).  
Concerning core teaching and learning activities, in accordance with Stacey (2018)’s roadmap, OE is discussed in terms of Open Educational Resources (OER) – how to produce, adopt and adapt them (Stracke, Downes, Conole, Burgos & Nascimbeni, 2019; Weller, Jordan, DeVries & Rolfe, 2018). In terms of OE practices, it is teaching openness (Nascimbeni, Burgos, Campbell & Tabacco, 2018) and conceptual perspectives (Cronin & Maclaren, 2018) which are discussed. Issues of open admission, open recognition, open assessment and open credentials are discussed at the theoretical level (Wiley, 2017) and at the cultural change level (Chiappe, Pinto & Arias, 2016). Return of concrete experiences are starting to be shared (García-Holgado, et al., 2020). Concerning quality, a first OE quality framework, in reference to ISO/IEC 40180, has been suggested (Stracke, 2019). At the strategic and leadership levels, major identified OE enablers are i) a clear policy priority assigned to open education; ii) an awareness-raising on open education, targeting leaders and educators; and iii) capacity-building in open education for educators and other stakeholders (Inamorato dos Santos, et al., 2017). Concerning technology, projects like QualiChain (cf. https://qualichain-project.eu/ ) work on smart open badges solutions  and a reflexion on technological compliant solutions is on-going (Coëtlogon, 2019).  
== Open potential of OE ==
OE though is far from having reached its full Open potential. In reference to epistemologies of humanness, link or actor-network theory previously mentioned, the disruptive open aspects of OE that will make the difference are still to be invented. The entire education ecosystem and supply chain remains globally the same because we have not yet realised the potential of the internet as a commons. We have not realised either the potential of technologies that can be leveraged to support openness (e.g. semantic web) to fully imagine and create Open Education. Indeed, if I take the Edukata model (Eduvista, 2010-2014) for teachers’ adoption of technology as a backdrop, adopting a new approach to education takes time and several stages (Table 1).
{| class="wikitable"
|
|'''Teacher adoption of technology'''
|-
|'''Stage  5 Empower'''
Redefinition  & innovative use
|Technology  supports new learning services that go beyond institutional boundaries.
Mobile  and locative technologies support ‘agile’ teaching and learning.
The  learner as a ‘co-designer’ of the learning journey, supported by intelligent  content and analytics.
|-
|'''Stage  4 Extend'''
Network  redesign & embedding
|Ubiquitous,  integrated, seamlessly connected technologies support learner choice and  personalisation beyond the classroom.
Teaching  and learning are distributed, connected and organised around the learner.
Learners  take control of learning using technology to manage their own learning.
|-
|'''Stage 3 Enhance'''
Process redesign
|Teaching  and learning redesigned to incorporate technology, building on research in  learning and cognition.
Institutionally  embedded technology supports the flow of content and data, providing an  integrated approach to teaching, learning and assessment.
The  learner as a ‘producer‘ using networked technologies to model and make.
|-
|'''Stage 2 Enrich'''
Internal coordination
|Technology  used interactively to make differentiated provision within the classroom.
Technology  supports a variety of routes to learning.
The  learner as a ‘user’ of technology tools and resources.
|-
|'''Stage 1 Exchange'''
Localised use
|Technology  is used within current teaching approaches.
Learning  is teacher-directed and classroom-located.
The  learner as a ‘consumer’ of learning content and resources.
|}
Table 1: Edukata model (Eduvista, 2010-2014)
Steps adopted until now in OE are somehow permeated with “institutional positivism” (Piron, 2019). Whereas it is important that underlying epistemologies and values of education should be transparent and acknowledged by all stakeholders to empower them as knowledge co-creators, this is certainly not the case today. To reach stage 5 of the Edukata model and go beyond, being aware of underlying epistemologies and values, could be a starting point that could then lead to begin an Open Education process.
== Ideas for moving forward ==
To build in that direction, several ideas are suggested here, that are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary.   
The first is to get inspiration from the recent UNESCO’s (2020) draft proposition for Open Science and think how to implement “Openness to Diversity of Knowledge” in education for instance.   
The second is to reconsider learning in terms of transformative epistemologies as the ones we have presented above within an overall framework of abundance (and not scarcity).   
The third is to elaborate 10 core principles of OE in the same way as Open-source software has its 10 core principles (Table 2). I think this could be particularly promising because Ubuntu has been living in the Open-source software for several decades and can represent an interesting alternative. Below is a very first draft suggestion.   
{| class="wikitable"
|'''10 core principles of open-source software''' (
<nowiki>https://ubuntu.com/community/mission</nowiki>)
|'''Suggestion for core principles of Open  Education'''
|-
|1. Software must be free to redistribute.
|Education components must be free to  redistribute (e.g. courses, curricula, resources, artefacts, etc.)
|-
|2. The program must include source code.
|Education components must include sources and  guidelines / scenario on how to use them (Coppe, März, Decuypere, Springuel  & Colognesi, 2018; Trouche, Gueudet & Pepin, 2019).
|-
|3. The licence must allow people to experiment with and  redistribute modifications.
|The licence of  any education component must allow people to experiment with and redistribute  modifications.
|-
|4. Users have a right to know who is responsible for the software  they are using.
|Users have a  right to know who is responsible for the education component they are using.
|-
|5. There should be no discrimination against any person or group.
|There should be  no discrimination against any person or group.
|-
|6. The licence must not restrict anyone from making use of the  program in a specific field.
|The licence  must not restrict anyone from making use of the education  component in a specific field.
|-
|7. No-one should need to acquire an additional licence to use or  redistribute the program.
|No-one should  need to acquire an additional product to use or redistribute the education component.
|-
|8. The licence must not be specific to a product.
|The licence  must not be specific to an education component.
|-
|9. The licence must not restrict other software.
|The licence  must not hold any restriction.
|-
|10. The licence must be technology-neutral.
|The licence  must be technology-neutral.
|}
Table 2: Core principles of Open-source software, an inspiration for core principles of OE?
For all these reasons, I think that reimagining the education ecosystem with a model of abundance could provide interesting ideas for practice. Indeed, OE is an ecosystem, related to all the other Opens that needs to invent:
* social and institutional forms of existence oriented towards a knowledge society linked and linking, networked and networking, humane and aware of the wholeness (ecology);
* creative economic models that foreground the commons for Open Education;
* new supply chain models based on abundance, openness and co-creation.


== References ==
== References ==

Revision as of 15:17, 17 March 2022

Introduction

Open Education (OE) is an umbrella term as Open Science is. It is thus diverse and connected to many fields and domains, all having in common the “Open” aspect, cf. https://paulgstacey.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/landscapeofopenstacey.jpg .

Understandings about "Openness" is an on-going process tackled from many perspectives.

History of OE

Reflection about potential underlying epistemologies of OE

Questioning the dominant model

How academic knowledge was gained and research conducted in the recent past (approximately two centuries) is questioned today. It is questioned because it considers the dominant model of positivism – that advocates for objectivity and neutrality of knowledge to be generalised – as the sole valid one (Brière, Lieutenant-Gosselin & Piron, 2019). Several research domains - e.g. social studies of sciences, history of sciences, decolonising studies – criticise it for conveying “institutional positivism” (Piron, 2019). The gaining interest of epistemic justice as a research and social topic is an example of this movement (e.g. Eve & Gray, 2020; Kidd, Medina & Pohlhaus, 2017) against prevalent scientific knowledge production models.

UNESCO (2020)’s recent Open Science draft definition is also very insightful in this respect. It stresses the importance of acknowledging the diversity of knowledge: “For the purposes of this Recommendation, ‘Open Science’ means a complex of at least the following key elements: Open Access, Open Data, Open Source/Software and Open Hardware, Open Science Infrastructures, Open Evaluation, Open Educational Resources, Open Engagement of Societal Actors, Openness to Diversity of Knowledge, Openness to Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Openness to all Scholarly Knowledge and Inquiry”.

Epistemologies available in research methods textbooks

Research method textbook commonly cite positivism, constructivism, the transformative view and pragmatism as the main epistemologies (e.g. Creswell & Cresswell, 2018). The transformative epistemological assumption gives centre stage to meaning of knowledge seen from diverse and multiple socio-economico-cultural-etc. lenses and power inequities (Mertens, 2017). The transformative paradigm gained increased interest in the last part of the XXth century and seeks to advance both a research and a societal agenda. Linguistically speaking, it is interesting to notice that the transformative worldview is the only epistemology commonly cited in textbooks that is not composed in an -ism form. -ism suffix “is used in the composition of words designating philosophical or political schools of thought. Many of these words were created in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to name the vast movements of ideas that built and accompanied these two centuries. Their radical can be an adjective (heliocentrism, chauvinism, colonialism), a common noun (anarchism, cubism, centrism), a proper noun (Gaullism, Darwinism, Marxism). ”

This is our own translation of, “Le suffixe -isme est très productif. Il entre dans la composition de mots désignant des courants de pensée philosophiques ou politiques. Nombre de ces mots ont été créés aux dix-neuvième et vingtième siècles pour nommer les vastes mouvements d’idées qui ont bâti et accompagné ces deux siècles. Leur radical peut être un adjectif (héliocentrisme, chauvinisme, colonialisme), un nom commun (anarchisme, cubisme, centrisme), un nom propre (gaullisme, darwinisme, marxisme). L’abus de ce suffixe pour former des néologismes peu clairs témoigne le plus souvent de paresse dans la recherche de l’expression juste. » http://www.academie-francaise.fr/construction-en-isme

Sociomateriality, epistemologies of the link and humanness

Less well-known epistemologies - because they are considered to be part of one of the main above-mentioned families, because they are not Western-thinking-centred or for some other reasons may be interesting to understand underlying values of the Open paradigm. We particularly think of epistemologies related to the network which are largely used and accepted (e.g. actor network theory as stated by Callon, 2006; Latour, 2006). Epistemologies of the link (Piron, 2019) or epistemologies of Ubuntu, humanness (Nabudere, 2005; Ramose, 1999).

For a very brief overview of these three epistemologies, let us mention that Actor-network theory (ANT) is part of sociomateriality. Sociomaterial approaches share three common components. First, they study the system as one entire entity, composed of entangled human and non-human action and knowledge. Second, they focus on interactions and mediations - not on individuals or artefacts. Third, they consider knowledge and learning as embodied and embedded in actions and interactions (Fenwick, Edwards & Sawchuk, 2012). No hierarchy exist and certainly no privileged position for the human over the non-human. Binary categories such as usually discussed - agency-structure; subject-object; theory-practice - are considered not appropriate. The purpose of sociomaterial approaches is related to boundary-making processes and featuring out those which create knowledge. Key technical terms of this approach are assembling / reassembling, dynamics of entities, and, connections, with the aim of tracing how knowledge is produced. ANT in education research addresses flows, connections and interactions between human and material objects enacted for the purpose of learning with the aim of understanding how knowledge is produced (Fenwick, et al., 2012).

Epistemology of the link is inspired from Edgard Morin’s concept of “reliance” (from the French “lier”, linking). It is characterised by thinking in interaction with the human mankind to prevent isolation and considers thinking as an endeavour to make sense in interaction with others. It is on the move, interpretative, connecting, linking and is totally different from dogmas learnt by heart and repeated. It calls upon social and epistemic justice for a humanising science that makes sense in our world and connects ideas and beings (Piron, 2019). It is a call to cease the injunction of separation between the researcher and the object of research that is prevalent in Western epistemic traditions. It is an epistemology in the making that relies on Santos (2016 cited by Piron) call for an ecology of knowledge, an ecosystem in which diverse types of knowledge, without hierarchy, are in dialogue (Piron, 2017, p. 46).

Epistemology of Ubuntu, translated as humanness, “suggests both a condition of being and the state of becoming, of openness or ceaseless unfolding”(Ramose, 2015, p. 69). Ubuntu considers “the universe as a complex wholeness involving the multi-layered and incessant interaction of all entities” (Ramose, 2015, p. 69) – human beings, physical or objective nature. The three driving insights of Ubuntu are: 1) constant motion of “wholes” from generation to death to regeneration; 2) human dignity; 3) mutual care and sharing between human beings and physical nature (Ramose, 2015).

From epistemologies to theories

From these epistemologies, theories engaging in totally new worldviews and opening new horizons for learning are (re)emerging. The main one is the theory of abundance. It moves away from scarcity and its keyword is “enough”. Enough open and quality networks, resources, institutions, etc. to learn from and be able to grow as a responsible citizen in a knowledge economy in all the places on earth (Caron, 2020; Hoeschele, 2010).

In terms of learning theories, those which are most used and related to abundance theory are probably i) experiential learning (Usher, 2018), ii) social theories of learning like communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 2018) and iii) multiple approaches to understanding (Gardner, 2018).

Conjecturing: underlying epistemologies of the Open paradigm

My conjecture is that the Open paradigm, consciously or unconsciously, takes its roots in transformative epistemologies and in constructiveness. We deliberately call it constructiveness and not constructivism in reference to the above-mentioned reflexion on -ism concepts and to Ramose (2015, p. 69)’s explanation: “It [humanness] is thus opposed to any -ism, including humanism, for this tends to suggest a condition of finality, a closedness or a kind of absolute either incapable of or resistant to any further movement”. In addition, constructiveness is derived from constructive and defined as 1) declared such by judicial construction or interpretation; 2) of or relating to construction or creation; 3) promoting improvement or development, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constructive

Major technological advancements happened in the 1960s-70s-80s-90s, in part thanks to the free software movement. My conjecture is also that technology, such as the creation of the Internet in the 1960s and the world wide web in the 1990s (cf. https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-web) , permitted to revive essential features of scientific communities, i.e. transparency, freedom, sharing. Indeed, it is hardly known that scientific articles were public goods until the 1900s (Dulong de Rosnay & Langlais, 2017) and that scientific knowledge circulated freely beforehand. Thus, values of the free software movement, making free software a public good, converged with pre-existing values in scientific communities, resulting in open circulation of knowledge. It is not clear whether Internet is a public good today but originally it was created in that spirit. It is also acknowledged that the web opened a myriad of possibilities, it “became central to public access to the internet and also enabled the creation of a global knowledge network” (Harasim, 2017, p. 26).

Finally, let us keep in mind that it was in the late 90s that the Bologna reform was adopted in European higher education to build the knowledge society and the knowledge economy (Huisman, Adelman, Hsieh, Shams & Wilkins, 2012). It was also in those years that the Creative Commons project was being prepared to offer sustainable legal solutions to openly shared content. Finally, it was in those years that the free operating system Ubuntu was created and disseminated worldwide (cf. https://ubuntu.com/community/mission).

Open paradigm in higher education

Today, in higher education, the Open paradigm is well known thanks to two offspring – Open Science and Open Educational Resources.

Open Education (OE) is in the making. Several milestones have been set, as for instance, the core underlying principles of OE considered as a commons and including design for access, equity, agency, ownership, participation, distribution, innovation and sustainability (Blessinger & Bliss, 2016; Stacey & Hinchliff Pearson, 2017). Its concrete implementation in higher education is still to be invented but a guiding framework exists (Inamorato dos Santos, Punie & Castaño Muñoz, 2016) and different research projects have experienced some parts of OE or some parts of the framework (e.g. Open book project; OpenMed).

Concerning core teaching and learning activities, in accordance with Stacey (2018)’s roadmap, OE is discussed in terms of Open Educational Resources (OER) – how to produce, adopt and adapt them (Stracke, Downes, Conole, Burgos & Nascimbeni, 2019; Weller, Jordan, DeVries & Rolfe, 2018). In terms of OE practices, it is teaching openness (Nascimbeni, Burgos, Campbell & Tabacco, 2018) and conceptual perspectives (Cronin & Maclaren, 2018) which are discussed. Issues of open admission, open recognition, open assessment and open credentials are discussed at the theoretical level (Wiley, 2017) and at the cultural change level (Chiappe, Pinto & Arias, 2016). Return of concrete experiences are starting to be shared (García-Holgado, et al., 2020). Concerning quality, a first OE quality framework, in reference to ISO/IEC 40180, has been suggested (Stracke, 2019). At the strategic and leadership levels, major identified OE enablers are i) a clear policy priority assigned to open education; ii) an awareness-raising on open education, targeting leaders and educators; and iii) capacity-building in open education for educators and other stakeholders (Inamorato dos Santos, et al., 2017). Concerning technology, projects like QualiChain (cf. https://qualichain-project.eu/ ) work on smart open badges solutions and a reflexion on technological compliant solutions is on-going (Coëtlogon, 2019).

References

Bates, A. W. (2015). Teaching in a Digital Age. Guidelines for designing teaching and learning for a digital age. Online open textbook.

Blessinger, P. & Bliss, T. J. (2016). Introduction to Open Education: Towards a Human Rights Theory. In P. Blessinger & T. J. Bliss (Eds.), Open Education. International Perspectives in Higher Education (pp. 11-30). Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers.

Brière, L., Lieutenant-Gosselin, M. & Piron, F. (2019). Et si la recherche scientifique ne pouvait pas être neutre? . Éditions science et bien commun.

Callon, M. (2006). Sociologie de l'acteur réseau In M. Akrich, M. Callon & B. Latour (Eds.), Sociologie de la traduction. Textes fondateurs (pp. 267-276). Paris: Mines Paris. Les Presses.

Caron, B. R. (2020). Open Scientist Handbook. Chiappe, A., Pinto, R. & Arias, V. (2016). Open Assessment of Learning: A Meta-Synthesis. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(6), 44-61.

Coëtlogon, P. (2019). Vers une blockchain dédiée à l’éducation, capable de certifier les diplômes comme les droits de propriété intellectuelle ? https://www.actualitesdudroit.fr/browse/tech-droit/blockchain/20993/vers-une-blockchain-dediee-a-l-education-capable-de-certifier-les-diplomes-comme-les-droits-de-propriete-intellectuelle

Coppe, T., März, V., Decuypere, M., Springuel, F. & Colognesi, S. (2018). Ouvrir la boîte noire du travail de préparation de l’enseignant : essai de modélisation et d’illustration autour du choix et de l’évolution d’un document support de cours. Revue française de pédagogie, 204(3), 17-31.

Creswell, J. & Cresswell, D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (5the éd.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Cronin, C. M. G. & Maclaren, I. (2018). Conceptualising OEP: A review of theoretical and empirical literature in Open Educational Practices. Open Praxis, 10, 127-143.

Dulong de Rosnay, M. & Langlais, P.-C. (2017). Public artworks and the freedom of panorama controversy: a case of Wikimedia influence. Internet Policy Review, 6(1).

Eduvista. (2010-2014). Innovation Maturity Model. http://files.eun.org/fcl/eduvista/eduvista-tool-2p1.pdf

Eve, M. P. & Gray, J. (dir.). (2020). Reassembling Scholarly Communications. Histories, Infrastructures, and Global Politics of Open Access Cambridge: MIT Press.

Fenwick, T., Edwards, R. & Sawchuk, P. (2012). Why sociomateriality in education? An introduction. In T. Fenwick, R. Edwards & P. Sawchuk (Eds.), Emerging Approaches to Educational Research (pp. 1-17). London: Routledge.

García-Holgado, A., García-Peñalvo, F. J., Vázquez-Ingelmo, A., Nascimbeni, F., Padilla-Zea, N., Burgos, D., . . . Brunton, J. (2020). Handbook of successful open teaching practices. OpenGame Consortium.

Gardner, H. (2018). Multiple approaches to understanding. In K. Illeris (Eds.), Contemporary theories of learning. Learning theorists... In their own words (2nde éd., pp. 129-138). London and New York: Routledge.

Harasim, L. (2017). Learning Theory and Online Technologies. (2e éd.). Routledge.

Hoeschele, W. (2010). The economics of abundance : a political economy of freedom, equity, and sustainability. Farnham: Routledge, Gower.

Huisman, J., Adelman, C., Hsieh, C., Shams, F. & Wilkins, S. (2012). Europe's Bologna process and its impact on global higher education In D. K. Deardorff, H. D. Wit & J. D. Heyl (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of International Higher Education (pp. 81-100). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Inamorato dos Santos, A., Nascimbeni, F., Bacsich, P., Atenas, J., Aceto, S., Burgos, D. & Punie, Y. (2017). Policy Approaches to Open Education Europen Commission.

Inamorato dos Santos, A., Punie, Y. & Castaño Muñoz, J. (2016). Opening up education. A support framework for higher education institutions. Seville: JRC Science Hub.

Kidd, I., Medina, J. & Pohlhaus, G. (2017). The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice. New York: Routledge.

Latour, B. (2006). Nous n'avons jamais été modernes: Essai d'anthropologie symétrique. Paris: La Découverte.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. Mertens, D. M. (2017). Transformative research: personal and societal. International Journal for Transformative Research, 4(1), 18-24.

Nabudere, D. (2005). Ubuntu Philosophy.Memory and Reconciliation. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/4521/3621.pdf

Nascimbeni, F., Burgos, D., Campbell, L. M. & Tabacco, A. (2018). Institutional mapping of open educational practices beyond use of Open Educational Resources. Distance Education, 39(4), 511-527.

Piron, F. (2017). Méditation haïtienne : répondre à la violence séparatrice de l’épistémologie positiviste par l’épistémologie du lien. Sociologie et sociétés, 49(1), 33-60.

Piron, F. (2019). L’amoralité du positivisme institutionnel. L'épistémologie du lien comme résistance In L. Brière, M. Lieutenant-Gosselin & F. Piron (Eds.), Et si la recherche scientifique ne pouvait pas être neutre? : Éditions science et bien commun.

Ramose, M. (1999). African Philosophy Through Ubuntu.

Ramose, M. (2015). Ecology through Ubuntu. In R. Meinhold (Eds.), Environmental Values. Emerging from Cultures and Religions of the ASEAN Region (pp. 69-76). Bangkok: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

Santos, B. d. S. (2016). Épistémologies du Sud : mouvements citoyens et polémique sur la science. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer.

Sinkinson, C. & McLure, M. (2020). Care in the Open. https://caring.openped.buffscreate.net/ (Framework not publication)

Stacey, P. (2018). Starting Anew in the Landscape of Open. https://edtechfrontier.com/2018/02/08/starting-anew-in-the-landscape-of-open/

Stacey, P. & Hinchliff Pearson, S. (2017). Made With Creative Commons. Denmark: Ctrl+Alt+Delete Books.

Stracke, C. (2019). Quality Frameworks and Learning Design for Open Education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(2).

Stracke, C., Downes, S., Conole, G., Burgos, D. & Nascimbeni, F. (2019). Are MOOCs open educational resources? A literature review on history, definitions and typologies of OER and MOOCs. Open Praxis, 11(4).

Trouche, L., Gueudet, G. & Pepin, B. (2019). The 'Resource' Approach to Mathematics Education. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

UNESCO. (2020). First draft of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374837

Usher, R. (2018). Experiential learning. In K. Illeris (Eds.), Contemporary theories of learning (2e éd., pp. 189-203). Oxon and New York: Routledge.

Weller, M., Jordan, K., DeVries, I. & Rolfe, V. (2018). Mapping the open education landscape: citation network analysis of historical open and distance education research. Open Praxis, 10(2), 109-126.

Wenger, E. (2018). A social theory of learning. In K. Illeris (Eds.), Contemporary theories of learning. Learning theorists... In their own words (2nde éd., pp. 219-228). London and New York: Routledge.

Wiley, D. (2017). Iterating Toward Openness: Lessons Learned on a Personal Journey. In R. S. Jhangiani & R. Biswas-Diener (Eds.), Open: The Philosophy and Practices that are Revolutionizing Education and Science (pp. 195-207). London: Ubiquity Press.

Year of Open (2017). The Year of Open is a global focus on open processes, systems, and tools, created through collaborative approaches, that enhance our education, businesses, governments, and organizations https://www.yearofopen.org/

Retrieved from "https://edutechwiki.unige.ch/mediawiki/index.php?title=Open_Education&oldid=75873"