Skip to main content
Search
Search
Quick Search anywhere
Quick Search anywhere
Quick Search anywhere
Quick Search anywhere
Quick Search anywhere
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
No Access

The case for an open science in technology enhanced learning

Published Online:February 15, 2012pp 643-654https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2011.045454

Abstract

In this paper, we make the case for an open science in technology enhanced learning (TEL). Open science means opening up the research process by making all of its outcomes, and the way in which these outcomes were achieved, publicly available on the World Wide Web. In our vision, the adoption of open science instruments provides a set of solid and sustainable ways to connect the disjoint communities in TEL. Furthermore, we envision that researchers in TEL would be able to reproduce the results from any paper using the instruments of open science. Therefore, we introduce the concept of open methodology, which stands for sharing the methodological details of the evaluation provided, and the tools used for data collection and analysis. We discuss the potential benefits, but also the issues of an open science, and conclude with a set of recommendations for implementing open science in TEL.

Keywords

reproducible research, comparability of research, open methodology, open access, open data, open source, vision paper, barriers to open science, implementation of open science, open science, technology enhanced learning, TEL

References

  • 1. B-C. Björk, '‘Open access to scientific publications – an analysis of the barriers to change?’' Information Research (2004) Google Scholar
  • 2. BOAI, Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002) Google Scholar
  • 3. A.W. Bowman, '‘Interactive teaching tools for spatial sampling’' Journal of Statistical Software (2010) Google Scholar
  • 4. J. Brase, '‘DataCite – a global registration agency for research data’' (2009) Google Scholar
  • 5. H.W. Chesbrough, Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (2003) Google Scholar
  • 6. R. Dalton, '‘Misconduct: the stars who fell to earth’' Nature (2002) Google Scholar
  • 7. P.A. David, '‘Can “open science” be protected from the evolving regime of IPR protections?’' Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE (2004) Google Scholar
  • 8. J.P.E. del Cid, '‘Implementation of a learning design run-time environment for the. LRN learning management’' Journal of Interactive Media in Education, Special Issue: Adaptation and IMS Learning Design (2007) Google Scholar
  • 9. M. Dougiamas, P. Taylor, D. Lassner Ed., C. McNaught Ed., '‘Moodle: using learning communities to create an open source course management system’' Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2003 (2003) Google Scholar
  • 10. H. Drachsler, '‘Issues and considerations regarding sharable data sets for recommender systems in technology enhanced learning’' Procedia Computer Science (2010) Google Scholar
  • 11. I.E. Dror, '‘Technology enhanced learning: the good, the bad, and the ugly’' Pragmatics & Cognition (2008) Google Scholar
  • 12. P.F. Dubois, T. Epperly, G. Kumfert, '‘Why Johnny can’t build [portable scientific software]’' Computing in Science & Engineering (2003) Google Scholar
  • 13. G. Eysenbach, '‘Citation advantage of open access articles’' PLoS Biology (2006) Google Scholar
  • 14. J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, Understanding Open Source Software Development (2002) Google Scholar
  • 15. S. Fomel, G. Hennenfent, '‘Reproducible computational experiments using SCons’' (2007) Google Scholar
  • 16. O. Gassmann, E. Enkel, '‘Towards a theory of open innovation: three core process archetypes’' (2004) Google Scholar
  • 17. G. Geser, Open Educational Practices and Resources: The OlcOs Roadmap 2012 (2007) Google Scholar
  • 18. D. Gezelter, '‘What, exactly, is open science? The open science project’' (2009) Google Scholar
  • 19. D. Gillet, P. Scott, R. Sutherland, '‘STELLAR European research network of excellence in technology enhanced learning’' (2009) Google Scholar
  • 20. C. Goble, D.C. De Roure, '‘myExperiment: social networking for workflow-using e-scientists’' in Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Workflows in Support of Large-Scale Science (2007) Google Scholar
  • 21. N. Henry, H. Goodell, N. Elmqvist, J-D. Fekete, '‘20 years of four HCI conferences: a visual exploration’' Intl. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (2007) Google Scholar
  • 22. J. Kirby, C. Hoadley, A. Carr-Chellman, '‘Instructional systems design and the learning sciences: a citation analysis’' Educational Technology Research and Development (2005) Google Scholar
  • 23. K. Knorr-Cetina, The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (1981) Google Scholar
  • 24. P.O. Larsen, M. von Ins, '‘The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by science citation index’' Scientometrics (2010) Google Scholar
  • 25. B. Latour, S. Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (1979) Google Scholar
  • 26. E. Marshall, '‘Bermuda rules: community spirit, with teeth’' Science (2001) Google Scholar
  • 27. H. Maurer, M.S. Khan, '‘Research trends in the field of e-learning from 2003 to 2008: a scientometric and content analysis for selected journals and conferences using visualization’' Interactive Technology and Smart Education (2010) Google Scholar
  • 28. P. Murray-Rust, '‘Open data in science’' Serials Review (2008) Google Scholar
  • 29. A. Narayanan, V. Shmatikov, '‘Robust de-anonymization of large sparse datasets in security and privacy’' (2008) Google Scholar
  • 30. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Labor Force (2010) Google Scholar
  • 31. M. Nielsen, '‘The future of science’' (2008) Google Scholar
  • 32. S. Osentoski, '‘Brown ROS package: reproducibility for shared experimentation and learning from demonstration’' (2010) Google Scholar
  • 33. M. Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension (1983) Google Scholar
  • 34. D.J.D.S. Price, Little Science, Big Science (1963) Google Scholar
  • 35. W. Reinhardt, C. Meier, H. Drachsler, P. Sloep, C.D. Kloos Ed., D. Gillet Ed., R.M.C. Garcìa Ed., F. Wild Ed., M. Wolpers Ed., '‘Analyzing 5 years of EC-TEL proceedings’' Towards Ubiquitous Learning. Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (2011) Google Scholar
  • 36. M. Schwab, N. Karrenbach, J. Claerbout, '‘Making scientific computations reproducible’' Computing in Science & Engineering (2000) Google Scholar
  • 37. J. Stamper, V. Aleven Ed., J. Kay Ed., J. Mostow Ed., '‘PSLC DataShop: a data analysis service for the learning science community’' Intelligent Tutoring Systems (2010) Google Scholar
  • 38. V. Stodden, '‘The legal framework for reproducible scientific research: licensing and copyright’' Computing in Science & Engineering (2009) Google Scholar
  • 39. V. Stodden, '‘The scientific method in practice: reproducibility in the computational sciences’' (2010) Google Scholar
  • 40. K. Verbert, '‘Dataset-driven research for improving recommender systems for learning’' (2011) Google Scholar
  • 41. M. Waldrop, '‘Science 2.0’' Scientific American (2008) Google Scholar
  • 42. N.S. Young, J.P. Ioannidis, O. Al-Ubaydli, '‘Why current publication practices may distort science’' PLoS medicine (2008) Google Scholar
  • 43. B. Zhou, J. Pei, W. Luk, '‘A brief survey on anonymization techniques for privacy preserving publishing of social network data’' ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter (2008) Google Scholar
  • 44. () Google Scholar
  • 45. () Google Scholar
  • 46. () Google Scholar
  • 47. () Google Scholar
  • 48. () Google Scholar
  • 49. () Google Scholar
  • 50. () Google Scholar
  • 51. () Google Scholar
  • 52. () Google Scholar
  • 53. () Google Scholar
  • 54. () Google Scholar
  • 55. () Google Scholar
  • 56. () Google Scholar
Previous article