the team at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece, most notably Prof. Ioannis Stamelos, and with the Collaborative Creativity Group at UNU-MERIT, namely Rüdiger Glott and Rishab Ghosh (loc: 388-89)

More recently one can observe however a further development within the educational domain that might be broadly characterized as ‘Open Courses’. These attempts, unlike the OER case, seem to be mainly driven at the individual educators’ level, but are not strategically addressed at the institutional level. Such ‘Open Courses’ seem to experiment with a range of different educational approaches, to promote different levels of openness, incorporate different sets of free and open tools and learning resources, and – to a varying degree – mix formal with informal learning, bringing together different stakeholders to be found on the web. (loc: 400-405)

Research Question 3: Are there any shortcomings of established practices of courses within formal education and Meta-design in comparison to the FLOSS case? a) What are key characteristics deemed to be desirable of well-established online learning ecosystems such as the FLOSS case that are absent within established practices of courses within formal education that operate to a certain degree ‘in the open’? (loc: 428-31)

Research Question 4: How could the concept of ‘seeding’ and ‘re-seeding’ be translated to Open Course design? Which type of overall organizational framework would be required to allow for this? a) How to allow for continuity and evolutionary growth of learning resources, spaces and tools, communities involved (internal and / or external ones) over time and to establish a transactive group memory? b) How to keep learning resources (initial ones as well as those leveraged into the course by the students), artifacts created by students and underlying discourse within a context and structure that would allow future cohorts of students to re experience, build on them and to improve what others did? c) How to easily organize, formalize and generalize the created knowledge, including structures and processes within the ‘re-seeding’ phase? (loc: 431-37)

Research in FLOSS has been carried out from a number of different perspectives, such as the community of practice / community of learner perspective (Wenger, 1998; Pór, 2004; Stürmer, 2005), from the software development perspective, (Scacchi, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006a, 2006b), from the knowledge building perspective (Hemetsberger & Reinhardt, 2004, 2006; Hemetsberger 2006), a technological community perspective (Pór, 2004; Meiszner, 2007), or from a conceptual and educational perspective (de Paula et al., 2001; Fischer & Sugimoto, 2006; Fischer, 2007; Scharff, 2002; Staring, 2005; Bacon & Dillon, 2006). (loc: 539-44)

The FLOSS model shows how users can become active ‘resource’ creators, how learning processes can be made visible and can benefit other learners, how to successfully establish and maintain user support systems, and ultimately how all of this can be re-used and freely maintained (Glott et al., 2007; Weller & Meiszner 2008). From a pedagogical perspective learning in FLOSS might be characterized by self-studying, project-based learning, problem-based learning, inquiry-based learning, collaborative learning, reflective practice or also by social learning (Glott et al., 2007; Weller & Meiszner 2008). (loc: 544-48)

there appear to be three general Open Course scenarios: the inside, the outside, and the hybrid approach. (loc: 573-74)

Bacon and Dillon (2006) suggest that there are two general factors from which educational settings might benefit from FLOSS approaches: the common based peer-production and the way of teaching and learning. With this they, like Staring (2005), aimed to directly translate the FLOSS learning ecosystem into current educational systems, for example by looking at how FLOSS benefits from its community and translating it to education where teachers would be supported by Communities of Practice (CoPs) and where students would become actively engaged knowledge creators. Bacon and Dillon (2006) aimed to link FLOSS approaches to their counterparts in educational settings introducing educational terminologies like: constructivism, learner centred, cooperative learning, collaborative learning, or practice (problem/inquiry) based learning. Bacon and Dillon (2006) did not claim that there is, or is not, a totally new pedagogical approach of learning within the FLOSS communities – but in the way that FLOSS communities make it work in practice. (loc: 735-42)

Learning in FLOSS communities might be described as experiential learning, where learning is a process that creates new knowledge through the transformation of experiences that are developed within this process (Kolb, 1984 in Hemetsberger, 2006; Hemetsberger & Reinhardt, 2006). (loc: 760-62)

Enabling re-experience seemed to be a crucial requirement for online learning and knowledge building and a principle that FLOSS communities are following. “Our findings make one key assertion. They reveal that enabling re-experience constitutes the fundamental mechanism for learning and knowledge-building to occur online. From an individual perspective, learning is initiated by displaying information-rich content, both; in a structural and in a sequential order, as well as by instructive content and discourse. At the collective level, we found participative practice, collective reflection and virtual experimentation processes to be explanatory with respect to knowledge building. Knowledge manifests itself online through a variety of contents displayed, as well as through online discourse. Our analysis further documents how those manifestations of knowledge initiate individual and collective processes of learning and knowledge building. In the following those processes are described in detail.” (Hemetsberger & Reinhardt, 2006 p.195) (loc: 769-76)

Conole (2008) claims that there has never been a closer alignment between the current practices of Web 2.0 technologies and what is put forward as good pedagogy. She goes on arguing about the need to rethink the fundamental characteristics of learning and what those fundamentals consist of and how social networking might be harnessed to maximise these characteristics to best effect. Conole (2008) argues further that the current complexity of digital environments requires developing ‘schema’ or ‘approaches’ to thinking about how one could harness best the benefits offered through new technologies. (loc: 1100-1104)

Fischer and Scharff (1998) describe the need for self-directed learning, the theoretical grounding, and the type of learning environments required to support and foster self directed learning. To support their argumentation they draw on Resnick’s (1989) six fundamental assumptions to learning and derive from those characteristics that online learning environments should feature. (loc: 1130-32)

4. Learning needs to account for distributed cognition (Norman, 1993), by which the knowledge and effort required to solve a problem is distributed among various participants. The distribution of knowledge among humans is based on the “symmetry of ignorance” (Rittel, 1984) or asymmetry of knowledge between different stakeholders in problem solving. (loc: 1169-72)

5. “Learning is affected as much by motivational issues (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) as by cognitive issues, requiring environments that let people experience and understand why they should learn and contribute something. For example, learning-on-demand (Fischer, 1991) lets users access new knowledge in the context of actual problem situations and delivers information about which they are unaware in the context of their problem situations. Environments must allow users to take pride in their contributions and be awarded for them.” (Fischer & Scharff, 1998 p.2) (loc: 1187-92)

Therefore learners not only have access to new knowledge in the context of an actual problem situation (Fischer & Scharff, 1998), but are also guided to this knowledge. This guidance might be by re-experiencing how others have learnt, or it might be by learners posting their considered solution and then receiving feedback and further information to it by other community members. (loc: 1194-97)

6. Learning is not limited to any discrete group of individuals. Even though educational systems deal with “teachers” and “learners” as separate groups, in reality these labels are not universally applicable. As tasks and responsibilities change, all individuals must be continuously learning. For example, educators who are traditionally “teachers” may desire to investigate new technologies to use in their classrooms. However, when exposed to new technology and methodologies for creating educational curricula, teachers become learners in order to understand how to use new opportunities effectively.” (Fischer & Scharff, 1998 p.2) This characteristic is well presented within FLOSS as participants assume many roles, and with such roles being a subject to frequent changes depending on context, task or situation (Ghosh et al., 2002; Hemetsberger & Reinhardt 2006). This is due to the broad range of participation opportunities provided; the very different tasks involved; the rapid advancement and development of the software; technology and ultimately knowledge. Participants in FLOSS might be experts in one area, relatively skilled in a second one, but rather newbies in a third. As a matter of fact, ‘to learn’ is an important motivation for subject matter experts once they engage at support provision (Demaziere et al., 2006), (loc: 1200-1209)

observations within formal education at which strong students benefit once supporting weak students (Felder & Brent, 2007). (loc: 1228-29)

Cooperative or collaborative learning approaches that rely on a cognitive and constructive assumption also gained more and more on popularity within the educational landscape in recent years (Karagiorgy & Symeou, 2005), (loc: 1229-30)

One of the underlying ideas is that students learn more once being engaged in activities instead of just watching and listening; and also that cooperative / collaborative learning is of mutual benefit for both weak and strong students (Felder & Brent, 2007). Weak students that are working individually are likely to give up when they get stuck, but if working cooperatively do not so, meanwhile strong students learn more by supporting weak students and likely also find gaps in their own understanding that they would not have done otherwise (Felder & Brent, 2007). (loc: 1236-40)

The ‘Progressive Inquiry Model’ as for example suggested by the ‘Centre for Research on Networked Learning and Knowledge Building’3 of the University of Helsinki, Finland, promotes the idea of introducing a continuous inquiry cycle to support computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) (loc: 1318-20)

The PI model further suggests that students should be guided in setting up their own research questions and working theories that are made publicly available to foster collaboration (CSCL) and therefore allowing for improving shared ideas and explanations or the search for new information to support ideas and theories (Dean & Leinonen, 2004). Students should also be encouraged to publish the results of their work, not only to allow reflecting on those results, but also for them (the results / published work) to become a learning resource for future students. Therefore progressive inquiry promotes a project’s based approach, where the results of those projects (for example slideshows, project reports, posters, artifacts, etc.) help students to externalize and clarify their ideas and to share them with others. To allow this type of progressive inquiry it is important to provide students with virtual learning environments that provide tools for supporting the inquiry process, the sharing of knowledge, or expertise (Dean & Leinonen, 2004). (loc: 1328-36)

The term ‘learning material’ could be defined as any entity containing a chunk of information useful for somebody to develop knowledge in a certain context. It could be a book, a URL, an instructor, an observation, a peer, etc. This definition is suitable for formal education and FLOSS, as it is broadly expressed. (loc: 1365-67)

Schön (1987) distinguishes two types of reflections with the first one being a reflection IN action, which means to reflect on something while doing it, and the second being reflection ON action, which is a retrospective reflection after having done something. The difference of reflection IN action and reflection ON action is therefore the time at which the reflection takes place, but also the knowledge involved. This is to say that reflection IN action is a form of less structured and more intuitive spontaneous reflection, which requires a good level of experiences or routine to be carried out within the very moment the action takes place (Schön, 1987). Reflection ON action, in retrospect, on the other hand takes place once reflecting on more complex situations in which it would not have been possible to reflect at the very moment intuitively (Schön, 1987). (loc: 1598-1604)

An important difference between AR and reflective practice is the planned action and strategy behind AR and the continuity of re-progressing through the cycle again. Such strategies of AR might include observations, interviews or transcript analyses (McMahon, 2007). “In both models the reflection is intended to be transformative. In the case of the learning cycle this transformation can be mainly internal (i.e. concerned with knowledge or attitude). Whereas, in the case of the action research spiral, there is always an explicit strategic attempt to improve practice…What, then, distinguishes action research from the reflective practitioner model of learning? Are they two ways of describing the same thing? The answer is emphatically not. Action research is distinguished by a deliberate and planned intent to solve a particular problem (or set of problems). By its nature, action research involves strategic action. Such strategic action is not integral to the reflective practitioner model of learning and teaching (though, of course, it may result). That the reflective practitioner model involves going through part of the action research spiral (as expressed, for example, in Kolb’s learning cycle) does not make it action research. Merely going through the spiral (even all of it) will not result in action research.“ (McMahon, 2007 p.167) (loc: 1618-27)

“Action research is known by many other names, including participatory research, collaborative inquiry, emancipatory research, action learning, and contextual action research, but all are variations on a theme. Put simply, action research is ‘learning by doing’ - a group of people identify a problem, do something to resolve it, see how successful their efforts were, and if not satisfied, try again. While this is the essence of the approach, there are other key attributes of action research that differentiate it from common problem-solving activities that we all engage in every day.”(O’Brien, 1998 p.1) (loc: 1643-48)

Brown and Adler (2008) for example describe the importance of social learning and the emergence of Open Participatory Learning Ecosystems (OPLE) to support social learning styles. Following their description OPLE consist of lightweight, bottom-up, emergent socio-technical structures with a shifted focus from the content of a subject to the learning activities and human interactions around which that content is situated. Within the concept of social learning they further explain the effectiveness of learning groups, of learners taking on different roles such as teacher, the importance of not only ‘learning about’ the subject matter but also ‘learning to be’ a full participant in the field, and how to acquire those skills through practice, plus gaining soft skills on the fly as part of their learning activities. As an example Brown and Adler point to FLOSS communities and also Wikipedia, which are showing how the digital preservation and availability of processes and products enable a new kind of critical reading that they describe as almost a new form of literacy that calls on the reader to consider what information might be reliable or important (Brown and Adler, 2008) (loc: 1787-95)

Equally inspired by the FLOSS case are the Meta-design conceptual framework (Fischer, 2007) and underlying Courses as Seeds process model (de Paula et al., 2001). Both are aimed to support the design and growing of courses that follow some of the FLOSS principles and that are based on the notion of the collaborative power of the internet (technical component) and a general increasing digital literacy of learners and their potential to act as co-designer in a collaborate manner together with their peers by engaging in personal meaningful tasks (social component). Meta-design and its underlying Courses as Seeds process model want to provide practical solutions to the changing educational demands as for example outlined by Wiley (2006). They recognize the need of lifelong learning and the role and value that ICT and the Internet can add to education. They further recognize that citizens in the information age need an enlarged set of skills beyond the ones traditionally taught at school, like writing, reading and mathematics. Those new skills include internet literacy, critical and analytical thinking, self-learning abilities, to cope with ill structured problems in complex virtual environments that involve (loc: 1795-1804)

The Meta-design conceptual framework aims at “defining and creating socio-technical environments as living entities. It extends existing design methodologies focused on the development of a system at design time by allowing users to become co-designers at use time” (Fischer, 2007 p.1). (loc: 1854-56)

Meta-design is aimed to support self-directed learners within virtual learning communities by creating socio-technical environments that support new forms of collaborative design. (loc: 1856-57)

Following early pilots in 2001, where the team of the Centre of LifeLong Learning & Design (l3d) at the University of Colorado at Boulder (US) aimed at applying some FLOSS principles to collaborative learning environments (Scharff, 2002), it was recognized that “emerging success models, such as open source software and Wikipedia, have provided evidence of the great potential of socio-technical environments in which users can be active contributors.” (Fischer, 2007 p.3). (loc: 1861-65)

The Courses as Seeds (Seeding, Evolutionary growth, re-seeding / SER) process model aims to support collaborative learning that makes use of community based learning theories that are coupled with innovative collaborative technologies (de Paula et al., 2001). The model was inspired by the evolutionary and decentralized development of open systems, as for example FLOSS. The SER model sees Courses as Seeds and not as finished products, which is in sharp contrast to the traditional view where courses are finished products. “The seeding, evolutionary growth, and reseeding (SER) model (Fischer & Ostwald, 2002) is an emerging descriptive and prescriptive model for creating software systems that best fit an emerging and evolving context. In the past, large and complex software systems were built as complete artifacts through the large efforts of a small number of people. Instead of attempting to build complete systems, the SER model advocates building seeds that can evolve over time through the small contributions of a large number of people. It postulates that systems that evolve over a sustained time span must continually alternate between periods of planned activity and unplanned evolution, and periods of deliberate (re)structuring and enhancement. A seed is something that has the potential to change and grow. In socio-technical environments, seeds need to be designed and created for the technical as well as the social component of the environment.” (Fischer, 2007 p.5) (loc: 1909-20)

The three components of the SER model are: • Seeding – means to lay out the initial structure of the system that is supposed to evolve later. The system should be designed by designers and instructors to be as complete as possible, but still remaining open-ended to allow future evolution. • Evolutionary Growth – this phase consists of a rather unplanned evolution as a result of user perceptions, demands and contributions with the seed. • Reseeding – once the system has evolved there would be the need to organize, formalize and generalize the created knowledge, including structures and processes. This phase might be illustrated with the major release of a new software version that integrates all of the patches of the prior version, some of the contributions and newly developed features. As future users are likely to be more interested in contextualized content, instead of individual assignments, the reseeding phase should impose a more general structure on the content that makes sense to those that did not participate in its creation (Fischer, 1998). (loc: 1941-49)

Like the Meta-design framework the Courses as Seeds / SER model has to face not only the challenge of not matching to current educational systems and cultural attitudes, but also in finding the right motivational factors that would stimulate learners to become active contributors. The SER model does not provide any clear details, nor evidences, nor good practice examples, that could illustrate how to provide those, but only the general notion that ‘it’ (courses, activities, contributions) must be meaningful for the learner in order for him/her to be motivated to participate and that contributions could be further stimulated by reward mechanisms. Another analogy that the SER model has with the Meta-design framework is that it does not explicitly addresses the need of a critical mass of participants and a continuous evolutionary community growth, to keep in some of the ‘old foxes’ / ‘power users’ and the people in between those and the beginners. (loc: 1999-2006)

In general students are assessed as defined by ADM through ‘Authentic assessment’ (Accountability, 2007) using Jon Mueller's ‘Authentic assessment definition’ in which students are assessed upon performed real-world tasks that demonstrate a meaningful application of essential knowledge and skills (Müller, 2008). (loc: 2201-4)

1. Valuing Change: Because each student comes into the model at a different proficiency level, the expectations must therefore be different for each student. This model allows teachers the ability to tailor goals for individual students based upon their needs and then take the achievement of these goals into consideration in determining their grade. 2. Valuing Mastery: Each core discipline will identify certain skills that can be mastered in middle school. Once each student has demonstrated mastery of the topic, concept, or skill, they will become certified to teach others. This model allows students to become experts and mentors for other students, thus fully rendering the classroom environment a place of apprenticeship learning. During the course students are then expected to provide progress reports that are aimed to support the students’ assessment. (loc: 2207-13)

‘Free learners’ are learners outside of formal education that participate with the intentional objective to learn. It is suggested that ‘free learners’ are (1) a consumer within the inside approach, though in the ideal case they might be allowed to participate, (2) an active group in the outside approach, but not connected in a structured way to formally enrolled students or the underlying course, and (3) an active group in the hybrid approach and connected to formally enrolled students in a structured or semi-structured way. (loc: 2748-52)

semester based structures that are inherent to traditional education provide almost ‘per-se’ a challenge to establish a learning ecosystem that would allow for continuous and evolutionary growth; as well on a community level, including the full spectrum of participants ranging from newbies over advanced learners to old foxes, as on a learning resource level. (loc: 2792-95)