Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Learning opportunities in FLOSS

1,038 views

Published on

FKFT presentation on Learning opportunities in FLOSS, by R.Glott & P.Schmidt
Part 1 Characteristics of learning in traditional learning environments and in FLOSS
Part 2 Example: “Students\' Knowledge Base”
Part 3 Conclusions
FKFT Free Knowledge, Free Technology
Education for a free information society
First International Conference, Barcelona July 15th to 17th 2008

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Learning opportunities in FLOSS

  1. 1.                        Learning opportunities in FLOSS Rüdiger Glott (UNU-Merit) Philipp Schmidt (UWC) FKFT Free Knowledge, Free Technology Education for a free information society First International Conference, Barcelona July 15th to 17th 2008
  2. 2. Agenda Part 1 Characteristics of learning in traditional learning environments and in FLOSS Part 2 Example: “Students' Knowledge Base” Part 3 Conclusions
  3. 3. Part 1 Characteristics of learning in traditional learning environments and in FLOSS
  4. 4. Characteristics of learning in traditional learning environments and in FLOSS Stylised Characteristics of Learning in Traditional Educational Settings ✔Roles of teachers and learners are fixed ✔Static content (more or less) ✔ Definition and changes of content depend on teachers ✔ Content is organised in form of fixed curricula ✔ Re-usage of content rather by teachers than by learners ✔ Exclusive access (performance tests, financial capacities, etc.) ✔ Limited set of learning resources (books, readers, specified websites, ...) ✔ Learners are consumers (passive) ✔ Learners must show performance (no lurkers!) ✔ Performance is continuously measured across all themes / disciplines ✔ Support and learning resources are often disconnected ✔ Support is mainly provided by teachers ✔ Opaque and hierarchical structures ✔ Top-down knowledge transfer ✔ Slow adoption of new educational technologies
  5. 5. Characteristics of learning in traditional learning environments and in FLOSS Stylised Characteristics of Learning in FLOSS ✔ Dynamic roles of teachers and learners ✔ Dynamic content (regular revisions and updates) ✔ Definition and changes of content depend on community ✔ Re-usage of content through teachers and learners ✔ Open access (no performance tests, no charges, etc.) ✔ Broad set of learning resources ✔ Learners are also producers (active) ✔ Learners need not to show performance (lurkers are welcome!) ✔ Performance can (but does not need to) be measured ✔ Performance counts rather theme-specific than in general ✔ Support and learning resources are connected ✔ Support is provided by teachers and learners ✔ Open and transparent structures foster discussions between equals ✔ Discursive knowledge transfer ✔ Fast adoption of new educational technologies
  6. 6. Characteristics of learning in traditional learning environments and in FLOSS Requirements from Open Participatory Learning Environments (OPLE) • Interest must be generated ● Content must be generated / collected, structured and provided ● Technical and organisational maintenance must be provided (technical infrastructure, changes, links, communication, ...) ● A (large enough) community must be established ● A support network must be established within the community ● Quality assurance must be provided ● Visibility (of good contributions) must be secured (incentives)
  7. 7. Part 2 Example: “Students' Knowledge Base”
  8. 8. Example: “Students' Knowledge Base” Brief Overview • Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME) • Student Wiki of Open Educational Resources (http://wiki.sch.bme.hu) • Provides learning materials for Electrical Engineering and Informatics Faculty • Including: ✔FAQ ✔Forum ✔Manuals ✔Mailing ✔Wiki
  9. 9. Example: “Students' Knowledge Base” Establishment ● Project started as an intranet site (set up by 4-5 students living at the Schoenherz Dormitory of the Budapest University of Technology and Economics) ● Original motivation: hobby of informatics students, with the objective to save the other students some time by providing a centralised server for all materials that is part of their curriculum ● Students in the dormitory were already sharing and exchanging materials regularly, the wiki simply provided a new and more convenient way of doing that ● Creators started setting up those courses first that they took themselves ● Next step: Lecturers were informed about the wiki and reviewed it, then started uploading materials themselves ● First few months: site was only accessible within the dormitory, access to the site was opened up to the public after this initial phase ●Created without requiring funding from University
  10. 10. Example: “Students' Knowledge Base” Current Status (February 2008) ● 5980 pages of content ● receives on average 1.2 million hits per month ● 2628 registered users ● more than 500 users are regularly logged on ● 890 changes to the content per month ● Materials are reviewed by the community and get corrected if something is wrong ● Reputation / visibility: no formal assessment; participants gain reputation from participation - the wiki provides the name of the user who created a particular page ● Official position of the faculty with respect to the site is mostly positive ● Problem: Knowledge Base cannot grow without funding
  11. 11. Part 3 Conclusions
  12. 12. Conclusions Requirements from OPLE - Revisited • Interest must be generated => No ● Content must be generated / collected, structured and provided => Yes ● Technical and organisational maintenance must be provided (technical infrastructure, changes, links, communication, ...) => Yes ● A (large enough) community must be established => No ● A support network must be established within the community => No ● Quality assurance must be provided => Yes ● Visibility (of good contributions) must be secured (incentives) => Yes
  13. 13. Conclusions Lessons Learnt • No need to generate interest if OPLE is created within a field of latent interest ● Traditional learning environments provide such fields ● A (large enough) community is inherent to such fields ● Support networks are likely to evolve in a self-organised way in such fields ●Quality assurance is eased in such fields because the community is easy to overlook and its members are familiar with the content ●Visibility (of good contributions) can easily be provided because community members know each other ● Expansion within University is difficult if volunteers with IT skills and infrastructure are missing in other departments and if there is no funding ●Alternative: Expanding by connecting different departments with similar Knowledge Bases across Universities (Problem: Organisational coherence)
  14. 14. Thank you for your attention! Contact: Rüdiger Glott glott@merit.unu.edu / r.glott@merit.unimaas.nl Philipp Schmidt phi.schmidt@gmail.com For further information on the FLOSSCom project see: www.flosscom.net

×