A Free and Open Course: The ne(x)t generation learner - Skills you need in lifelong learning knowledge and information

societies Rationale
Rationale Learning project specific information Underlying conceptual framework: Meta-design and courses as seeds (SER)
Introduction Meta-design Courses as seeds

Further literature & References Rationale Let me briefly explain the motivations behind the NetGeners.Net pilot: This pilot is inspired by the open source move, and also success cases like Wikipedia, and tries to apply some of the underlying principles in the light of open education. The project comes at a time where there is a rising level of activity in the area of open education (see e.g. The Cape Town Open Education Declaration), with one of the steering groups being the UNESCO OER community. For those of you that are familiar with the open source movement, you might think about the NetGeners.Net site as being aimed to be something like Sourceforge and the small learning projects as being aimed to be something like an open source project. (Or you might think about the NetGeners.Net site as being something like an open source project and the small learning projects as being something like an module / extension / add-on for this open source project). NetGeners.Net is supposed to be ONE course on ICT literacy, which consists of SEVERAL small learning projects that EACH addresses a particular field of ICT literacy. The web is full of freely available (good quality) content, from e.g. educational institutions (e.g. OpenLearn), companies (e.g. HP IT Resource Centre), municipalities (e.g. EducaMadrid), or individuals (Wikipedia). In the long tail education institutions might open further up to make (all of) their content freely available and let their students learn with students from other institutions and also free learner outside of formal education (see image below) - with all of them having common meeting points at the web. This would enrich the classroom based lessons and analogue to the open source case or Wikipedia would benefit all.

By: Andreas Meiszner (A.Meiszner@open.ac.uk), Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University – UK / v.01.080612 1

Image 1: FLOSS-Like learning environment (Meiszner 2007)

All of the principles behind the NetGeners.Net idea are not radically new; just the way they are applied within an educational context is different from the commonly found approaches. Wikiversity e.g. partly goes the same way than the NetGeners.Net approach. Learning project specific information What we would like to do at NetGeners.Net is to form (small) groups, of initially 3 to 4 participants for each learning project, which would: 1 • • Define objectives of this learning project (what do we want to show) As an example just have a look at the DWTDI - Different Ways To Disseminate Information learning project, or the Copyleft vs. Copyright one. The group of the learning project should define one member to be in charge and co-ordinate the project

2 Review existing content at the web relevant to this project, this should be in accordance to your objectives 3 • Debate pro’s and con’s of the retrieved information. The NetGeners.Net site has a forum and chat that could be used for this. If you use the chat it would be useful if one can copy the summary to e.g. the forum – so it remains visible for others. Develop / set up a e.g. wiki page summarizing the findings • This can be done either at the NetGeners.Net wiki, or in the case there is already a better established wiki at this one. E.g. the DWTDI project has chosen to use Wetpaint as their development space, Google Groups for collaboration and Freenode for their regular chats. The idea is that we don’t need to establish new communities if there are already good existing ones.


By: Andreas Meiszner (A.Meiszner@open.ac.uk), Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University – UK / v.01.080612 2

5 • 6 •

Present the project results by means of a presentation This might be done e.g. through the Open University's flashmeeting service and by making the presentation somewhere publicly available (e.g. at Slideshare). Evaluate the work you have done and also the project of others As a result of your (learning) activities you will have created some concrete output (content) that might be of use for future learners that even could take it to be further improved.

Underlying conceptual framework: Meta-design and courses as seeds (SER) Introduction Free / Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) approaches can be looked at and reflected on from different viewpoints and consequently can be associated to different theoretical models or conceptual frameworks. Seeing FLOSS from a community of practice / community of learner perspective (Wenger 1998; Pór 2004), from the software development perspective, (Scacchi 2002), from the knowledge building perspective (Hemetsberger & Reinhardt 2004; Hemetsberger & Reinhardt 2006; Hemetsberger 2006), as an technological environment (Pór 2004; Meiszner 2007), of from an educational perspective (dePaula 2001; Fischer 2002; Scharff 2002; Staring 2005; Bacon & Dillon 2006; Fischer 2006; Fischer 2007; Fischer 2007) likely leads to the selection of different theoretical models or conceptual frameworks to describe, analyze or compare them. The conceptual framework and model that were identified to be suitable for this work are the meta-design framework and courses as seeds (SER) model. This is because firstly both are aimed at providing practical solutions to the changing educational demands. They recognize the need of lifelong learning and the role and value that ICT and the internet can add to education. They 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 heterogeneous teams (Fischer 2006). Additionally both, meta-design and SER, recognize the importance of active users, user involvement and user as contributor. Secondly both, meta-design and SER, provide a generic framework that was inspired and partly derived from FLOSS as an educational environment, but also other successful cases like e.g. Wikipedia, and are therefore seen to provide the best support in identifying and piloting the applicability of FLOSS-like approaches in educational settings, in this case the NetGeners.Net pilot course.

By: Andreas Meiszner (A.Meiszner@open.ac.uk), Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University – UK / v.01.080612 3

Meta-design 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). 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. The framework pays tribute to the fact that future uses and problems of socio-technical systems can not be totally anticipated by the design time and must be flexible to changes during use time and allow an evolution through changed or identified user needs. The meta-design framework pays also attribution to the fact that users are active participants within a socio-technical environment that bring in their ideas and help shaping and forming the environment and contribute to it. The meta-design framework is thus describing relatively precisely what can be observed in practice within web based communities (e.g. myspace, furl, wikipedia, etc.), or within the FLOSS sphere. The meta-design framework was developed by Gerhard Fischer and his team at the Center for LifeLong Learning and Design (l3d 1 ) at the University of Colorado, US. Following early pilots in 2001 where the team of l3d 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).
“By allowing users to be designers, sociotechnical environments offer the possibility to achieve the best fit between systems and their ever-changing context of use, problems, domains, users, and communities of users. They empower users, as owners of a problem, to engage actively and collaboratively in the continual development of systems capable of sustaining personally meaningful activities and coping with their emergent needs. Sociotechnical environments evolve as a result of a flexible and collaborative development process, which in turn modifies the terms of participation itself in the production of software.” (Fischer 2007).

Image 2: Design time and use time (Fischer 2007)

For further information see: http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/index.html

By: Andreas Meiszner (A.Meiszner@open.ac.uk), Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University – UK / v.01.080612 4

Meta-design is based on the notion of the collaborative power of the internet (technical component) and a general increasing digital literacy of users and their potential to act as co-designer in a collaborate manner together with their peers by engaging in personal meaningful tasks (social component). Some of the key aspects of meta-design are: • • Systems should be open to change during use time and involve all stakeholders in the design process during design time and use time Systems need to be underdesigned at design time to allow users (“owner of problems”) to create solutions at use time. Some of the fundamental challenges associated with this are: • • How can we support skilled domain workers to achieve their goals How can we create co-adaptive environments where users change because they learn and systems change due to the users role as a codeveloper and contributor How can we provide users with opportunities, tools and social reward mechanisms to extend systems to fit their needs

• •

The seeding, evolutionary growth and reseeding (SER) model to support the appliance of meta-design

Meta-design does not assume that each user would or should become an active metadesigner, but that users would reside somewhere between those both ends and that some users would with time gradually advance from the passive consumer to an active designer as shown at image 3.

Image 3: The consumer / designer spectrum (Fischer & Giaccardi, E 2006)

This consumer / designer spectrum follows closely the groupings that can also be found in FLOSS projects where typically the largest group resides at the passive axis, with vast decreasing numbers of group participants as higher as the level of activity and skill becomes (see image 4). By: Andreas Meiszner (A.Meiszner@open.ac.uk), Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University – UK / v.01.080612 5

Image 4: Organizational structure of a typical FLOSS community (Crowston 2004, Aberdour 2007)

In general there are several lessons to be learnt from FLOSS (Fischer & Giaccardi 2006), like: • • • • • Making changes must be possible Changes must be technically feasible Benefits must be perceived Environments must support tasks that people engage in Low barriers must exist to share changes

The main differences between traditional course design and meta-design are shown at table 1.

Table 1: Traditional design vs. meta design (Fischer & Giaccardi, E 2006)

By: Andreas Meiszner (A.Meiszner@open.ac.uk), Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University – UK / v.01.080612 6

Finding from pilots (Fischer 2007) have shown that even if users do have the opportunity to become active co-designer and contributors they might opt of not making use of this opportunity if this opportunity does not relate to their personally meaningful problems. Those pilots also indicated that the meta-design approach seem not to work out if users are brought into the design process at a late stage as users might feel misused of fixing someone’s else problems instead of modelling the system in order to help it fixing their own problems. General challenges in applying meta-design in practice (Fischer & Giaccardi 2006) were seen to be: • Standardization and improvisation; meanwhile from the industry point of view the number of user modifications should be as small as possible, meta-design encourages a large variety of small user contributions. The reseeding phase of the SER model addresses this problem and has analogies to the FLOSS system where patches and small releases are integrated into the next major software release 2 . Consumers and designers; a great amount of new media is designed to see users only as consumers but not as designers 3 . Enabling co-creation; environments must allow users to become co-designers. Ease of use revisited; “’Ease-of-use’ along with the ‘burden of learning something’ are often used as arguments for why people will not engage in design. Building systems that support users to act as designers and not just as consumers is often less successful than the meta-designers have hoped for” (Fischer & Giaccardi 2006). Motivation and rewards; users must be motivated and receive some reward. This need to be addressed together with a change in culture (as the point above) as has been the case in FLOSS. New design space of meta-design; “meta-design encompasses three levels of design, meant as a new ‘design space’. These three levels of design can be summarized as: (1) designing design; (2) designing together; and (3) designing the ‘in-between’. Such levels of design refer to the field of meanings that the term meta-design has developed in the course of its various uses. They correspond, quite evidently, to the anticipatory, participatory, and sociotechnical issues raised by meta-design, and highlighted in this chapter. We can think of the design space of meta-design as a three-fold design space [Giaccardi, 2003] aimed at integrating the design of (1) a technical infrastructure that is evolvable, (2) a learning environment and work organization that allows users to become active contributors, and (3) a socio-technical system in which users can relate and find motivations and rewards” (Fischer & Giaccardi 2006). The different levels of the design space for meta design are illustrated at table 2.

• • •


Though it should be noted that FLOSS also follows other approaches, like keeping contributions out of the core. The software thus maintains a modular structure in order for modules to be easily added. Good examples for this approach are the firefox, joomla or oscommerce projects. 3 Though the recent trend in the so called “web 2.0” world sees users as co-designers and contributors

By: Andreas Meiszner (A.Meiszner@open.ac.uk), Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University – UK / v.01.080612 7

Table 2: Different levels of the design space (Fischer & Giaccardi 2006)

As initially stated, meta-design is seen to be a suitable generic conceptual framework on modelling and describing FLOSS and FLOSS-like learning environments. The metadesign concept further seems to match with observations and results of studies on collaboration in FLOSS (Hemetsberger & Reinhardt 2004; Hemetsberger & Reinhardt 2006; Hemetsberger 2006), the structures, processes and tools of and within FLOSS communities(Scacchi 2001; Scacchi 2002; Crowston 2004; Giuri 2004; Scacchi 2005; Demaziere 2006; Meiszner 2007), or the different involved roles and motivational aspects (Krishnamurthy 2002; Lakhani & von Hippel 2002; Giuri 2004; Gosh 2005; Demaziere 2006). It (meta-design) on the other hand does not explicitly consider FLOSS particularities like the support system (Lakhani & von Hippel 2002), including the required critical mass. The meta-design framework further does not answer the question on how to establish the type of win / win situations between information provider and information seeker that can be observed at the FLOSS support system. The framework also does not provide examples on motivation mechanisms to stimulate users to become active, though it acknowledges the importance of finding motivations and rewards. As a final point it might be mentioned that, although the framework has been applied at various pilots, it seems that those pilots have not taken off to become sustainable environments as one can find within FLOSS or at the web.

By: Andreas Meiszner (A.Meiszner@open.ac.uk), Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University – UK / v.01.080612 8

Courses as seeds The courses as seeds (SER) model aims to support collaborative learning that makes use of “community based learning theories with innovative collaborative technologies” (dePaula 2001). The model was inspired by the process models that can be found at the evolutionary and decentralized development of open systems, as e.g. 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)

The SER model assumes that “the traditional paradigm of education is not appropriate for understanding and learning to resolve the types of open-ended and multidisciplinary problems that are most pressing to our society. These problems, which typically involve a combination of social and technological issues, require a different paradigm of education and learning skills, including self-directed learning, active collaboration, and consideration of multiple perspectives. Problems of this nature do not have “right” answers, and the knowledge to understand and resolve them is changing rapidly, thus requiring an ongoing and evolutionary approach to learning” (dePAula 2001). The model therefore pays contribution to the fact that educational demands are consequently changing and that students need to be prepared to become self-responsible learners that are capable to tackle the various problems they have to face throughout their professional career. A particular challenge of applying this model lies within the structure of current educational systems and the cultural attitudes towards education as a consumable good. Current educational systems are based on pre-designed courses with given and fixed content and are usually limited to a semester with students (and society) expectations of students being imparted this pre-defined knowledge, including just the right answers. The SER model has the objective of: • • • • • • • Creating a culture of collective inquiry where Students take an active role in their own learning process that is Embedded in collaborative activities and Supported by innovative technologies With students adapting a mindset that understands that initial plans must not correspond to final outcomes and that they are Prepared for interpreting unexpected results, and Where discussions and decisions are captured and therefore

By: Andreas Meiszner (A.Meiszner@open.ac.uk), Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University – UK / v.01.080612 9

• •

Become artifacts that help future students in their learning process and Create an environment of current improvement and building upon what others built

By its design the SER model does not aim at structuring classes by a syllabus, but instead by a framework for “planning and situated action within evolutionary learning process”. (dePaula 2001) The SER model therefore is close to the way FLOSS communities function (Hemetsberger & Reinhardt 2004; Hemetsberger & Reinhardt 2006; Hemetsberger 2006). Another analogy to FLOSS is that the SER model is based on a variety of small (user) contributions that would become part of the course, instead of few and large (designer) contributions. This is indeed one of the characteristics that can be found in FLOSS (Stürmer 2005) that many participants are engaged in smaller sub-project that can be either integrated into the product (like contributions, modules, plug-ins, extensions), or are of a supportive nature (like manuals, live demos, how-to guides, translations).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. The meta-design model (Fischer 2007) also considers it to be important to involve users at this initial phase. 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 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 & Oswald 1997). As mentioned above the current cultural attitudes and mindsets within educational systems proof to be – at the minimum – a challenge for the SER model to be applied. The main differences between the courses as seeds model and the courses as finished products model are shown at table 3.

By: Andreas Meiszner (A.Meiszner@open.ac.uk), Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University – UK / v.01.080612 10

Table 3: Courses as finished products vs. courses as seeds (dePAula 2001)

In terms of technology the SER model aims at applying new technologies not to ‘recreate education as it is’, but to support activities like: • • Learning discourse and social capital – where courses should not be passive repositories, but living information and community based learning spaces Building, referring, extending – as opposed to delivering pre-fabricated information. Users should advance the state of knowledge, collaboratively construct new knowledge and not only consume current knowledge Formalizing, restructuring, re-using – The contributions to each course become part of the future course allowing future learners “to go beyond where they could have gone if they started from scratch” (dePaula 2001)

To reach those objectives courses as seed should be build by the following characteristics: • • • • • “A growing and evolving information space, driven by course activities Student-initiated contributions indicating personal interests and reflections Rich interaction among all participants, as opposed to strictly between student and instructor Knowledge building, including extensions to the original seed as well as to new ideas contributed by participants Discussions and artifacts that can be incorporated into the seed for the next course in a reseeding process” (dePaula 2001)

Like the meta-design framework the 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. Unlike in the FLOSS case there are no evidences, or good practice cases, 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 By: Andreas Meiszner (A.Meiszner@open.ac.uk), Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University – UK / v.01.080612 11

users’ and the people in between those and the beginners. Without the foregoing mentioned factors it also would be problematic to create a community based support system as to be found e.g. within FLOSS.

By: Andreas Meiszner (A.Meiszner@open.ac.uk), Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University – UK / v.01.080612 12

Further literature & References
• • • • • • • • • Aberdour, M. (2007). "Achieving Quality in Open Source Software." IEEE Software 24((1)): pp.5864. Bacon & Dillon , S. B., Teresa D. (2006). "The potential of open source approaches for education." Crowston, K. (2004). "The social structure of Free and Open Source software development." Demaziere, D. (2006). How free software developers work, Môle Armoricain de Recherche sur la Société de l’Information et les Usages d’INternet. 2007. dePaula, R. F., Gerhard; Ostwald, Jonathan (2001). Courses as Seeds: Expectations and Realities. Proceedings of The European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2001 (Euro-CSCL 2001), Maastricht, The Netherlands, March 22-24, 2001. Dougiamas &Taylor, M. D. P. C. T. (2003). "Moodle: Using Learning Communities to Create an Open Source Course Management System." Curtin University of Technology, Australia, presented at EDMEDIA 2003. Eisenberg, B. (2005). Lessons From Firefox - Open source developers can learn a lot from Mozilla's new browser, "Pacific Connection", an ongoing monthly series in Software Design. 2007. Feather-Gannon, S. F.-G. e. S. (2004). Qualitative Case Study Research, OEIS Technologies, Learning, and Performance, At: Organizational Systems Research Association. 2007. Fischer & Giaccardi, G. F. E. G. (2006). "Meta-Design: A Framework for the Future of End User Development." In H. Lieberman, F. Paternò, & V. Wulf (Eds.), End User Development — Empowering people to flexibly employ advanced information and communication technology, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands,: pp. 427-457. Fischer & Oswald , G. F. a. J. O. (1997). "Seeding, Evolutionary Growth, and Reseeding: Constructing, Capturing, and Evolving Knowledge in Domain-Oriented Design Environments." Submission to ASE Journal. Fischer, G. (2007). Meta-Design: Expanding Boundaries and Redistributing Control in Design. Proceedings of the Interact'2007 Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, September (in press). Fischer, G. O., Jonathan (2002). Seeding, Evolutionary Growth, and Reseeding: Enriching Participatory Design with Informed Participation. Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference (PDC'02), T. Binder, J. Gregory, I. Wagner (Eds.), Malmö University, Sweden, June 2002, CPSR, P.O. Box 717, Palo Alto, CA 94302,. Fischer, G. R., Markus; Wulf, Volker (2007). "Community-based learning: The core competency of residential, research-based universities." International Journal on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (iJCSCL), Vol 2 (1),(March 2007): pp. 9-40. Fischer, G. S., Masanori (2006). "Supporting Self-Directed Learners and Learning Communities with Sociotechnical Environments." International Journal Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning (RPTEL), 1(1),: pp. 31-64. Fitzgerald & Kenny, B. F. T. K. (2004). "Open Source Software in the Trenches: Lessons from a large scale OSS implementation." University of Limerick. Friedlander, F. (2001). "Participatory Action Research as a Means of Integrating Theory and Practice." Proceedings Fielding Graduate Institute Action Research Symposium Alexandria, VA. Giuri, P. (2004). Skills and Openness of OSS Projects: implications for performance, Laboratory of Economics and Management Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies P.zza Martiri della Libertà, 33, 56127 Pisa, Italy. Gosh, R. (2005). FLOSSPOLS Skill Surver Report. Hemetsberger & Reinhardt, A. H. C. R. (2004). Sharing and Creating Knowledge in Open-Source Communities: The case of KDE. The Fifth European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning, and Capabilities in Innsbruck, Austria, 2004,. Hemetsberger & Reinhardt, A. H. C. R. (2006). "Learning and Knowledge-building in Open-source Communities - A Social-experiential Approach." Hemetsberger, A. (2006). "UNDERSTANDING CONSUMERS’ COLLECTIVE ACTION ON THE INTERNET: A CONCEPTUALIZATION AND EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE FREEAND OPEN-SOURCE MOVEMENT." Jaccheri & Mork, L. J. H. a. M. (2006). "Studying Open Source Software with Action Research." Library of Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

• • •

• • • • • • • • • •

By: Andreas Meiszner (A.Meiszner@open.ac.uk), Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University – UK / v.01.080612 13

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Kittur et al., K., A.; Chi, E. H.; Pendleton, B. A.; Suh, B.; Mytkowicz, T. (2007). Power of the few vs. wisdom of the crowd: Wikipedia and the rise of the bourgeoisie, 25th Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2007); 2007 April 28 - May 3; San Jose; CA. Kohlbacher, F. (2006). "The Use of Qualitative Content Analysis in Case Study Research." Forum Qualitative Social Research Volume 7(No. 1): Art. 21. Krishnamurthy, S. (2002). "Cave or Community: An Empirical Examination of 100 Mature Open Source Projects." First Monday, 7 (2). Lakhani & von Hippel, K. R. E. (2002). "How Open Source Software Works: "Free" User-to-User Assistance." Research Policy, 32, 923-943. Lewis, M. (200). Focus group interviews in qualitative research: a review of the literature, University of Sydney, Australia - AROW (Action Research Open Web). 2007. Lin, Y. (2005). Construction of FLOSS Knowledge – Dynamics and a Community of Practice. McMahon, T. (2007). "Is reflective practice synonymous with action research?" Educational Action Research, 7:1, 163 - 169. Meiszner, A. (2007). "COMMUNICATION TOOLS IN FLOSS COMMUNITIES: A LOOK AT FLOSS COMMUNITIES "AT LARGE" - BEYOND THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM." Michlmayr, M. (2005). "Quality Improvement in Volunteer Free Software Projects: Exploring the Impact of Release Management." Centre for Technology Management, University of Cambridge. Motschnig-Pitrik & Derntl & Mangler, R. M., Michael D, Juergen M (2004). "Developing Cooperative Environment Web Services based on Action Research." University of Vienna. Myers, M. D. (1997). Qualitative Research in Information Systems, MISQ Discovery. 2007. Noll, J. (2007). Innovation in Open Source Software Development, Santa Clara University, Computer Engineering Department. 2007. O’Brien, R. (1998). "An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research." In Roberto Richardson (Ed.), Teoria e Prática da Pesquisa Ação [Theory and Practice of Action Research]. João Pessoa, Brazil: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. OECD (2007). Giving Knowledge for Free - THE EMERGENCE OF OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES, CENTRE FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND INNOVATION. Pór, G. (2004). Collaboration Tools for Communities of Practice. Scacchi, W. (2001). "Software Development Practices in Open Software Development Communities: A Comparative Case Study." Scacchi, W. (2002). "Understanding the Requirements for Developing Open Source Software Systems." Scacchi, W. (2005). Collaboration, Leadership, Control, and Conflict Negotiation in the Netbeans.org Open Source Software Development Community, Institute for Software Research, University of California, Irvine. 2007. Scacchi, W. (2006). Free/Open Source Software Development: Recent Research Results and Methods, Institute for Software Research, University of California, Irvine. 2007. Scharff, E. (2002). Applying Open Source Principles to Collaborative Learning Environments, University of Colorado, Center for LifeLong Learning and Design. 2007. Staring, K. (2005). Educational transformation through open source approaches, University of Oslo, Norway. 2007. Stürmer, M. (2005). Open Source Community Building, University of Bern, Switzerland. 2007. Swartz, A. (2006). Who Writes Wikipedia? 2007. Tellis, W. (1997). "Introduction to Case Study." The Qualitative Report Volume 3(Number 2). Wadsworth, Y. (1998). "What is Participatory Action Research?" Action research international, refereed on-line journal of action research published under the aegis of the Institute of Workplace Research, Learning and Development, and Southern Cross University Press, Australia. Watson, R. (2005). A Problem Shared Is a Problem Solved, Resource Center, Innovation Station. 2007. Wenger, E. (1998). "Communities of Practice - Learning as a Social System." Systems Thinker. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research : design and methods. London, Sage.

By: Andreas Meiszner (A.Meiszner@open.ac.uk), Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University – UK / v.01.080612 14

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful