A Framework to Understand, Analyse and Describe Online and Open

Education in Higher Education

Christine Jacqmot

, Françoise Docq

and Yves Deville

Louvain Learning Lab, UCLouvain, Grand Rue 54, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

ICTEAM, UCLouvain, Place Ste Barbe2, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

Keywords: Open Education, Online Learning, OER, MOOCS, Courseware, Framework, Models.

Abstract: This position paper addresses online and open education. It presents a simple, yet comprehensive framework

that can be adopted by any higher education institution in seek of: (1) clarification of terms and concepts

related to online and open education, (2) awareness of issues and challenges to set up strategies for online or

open learning, (3) informed choices and their impacts on operationalization actions, from an institutional point

of view, (4) perspectives on crucial issues, such as mobility, that HEI faces in a context of internationalization,

(5) awareness of policymakers and teachers on what open and online education is.

1 INTRODUCTION

Over the past years, digital technology has become an

integral part of educational systems. The aim is to

enable new forms of instruction in higher education

institutions (HEI). Technology has somewhat

transformed teaching practices (like the blended

learning or the flipped classrooms); new mindsets

have been adopted (like the open education and its

OER’s and MOOCs), and constraints due to time or

spaces have drastically evolved.

In 2015, UCLouvain adopted a new institutional

digital strategy. It aims to exploit digital and online

capabilities to enhance the creation, dissemination,

and diffusion of knowledge as well as to promote

openness. OER’s, open coursewares, MOOCs and

other forms of online education are at the heart of our

priority (Deville, 2018). Nevertheless, we must agree

with Major (2015) that “there is surprisingly little

information available about what teaching online

really means for the faculty”. When focusing on

pedagogy rather than technology, we are surprised

how confused our teachers are about the new

available educational models that digitalisation

makes possible. As a consequence, many teachers

adopt a “wait-and-see” attitude (Lebrun, 2018)

towards online learning or show a lack of awareness

of the possibilities offered by open education.

Teaching has to evolve to cope with the digital age

and we feel that there is a real need for clarification

to effectively foster online and open education within

institutions.

In this position paper, we propose a framework to

promote description, discussion, understanding and

judicious adoption of online and open learning. The

objectives are (1) to clarify the underlying concepts,

(2) to analyse issues and challenges one has to face

when setting up strategies for online or open learning,

(3) to propose informed choices and their impacts on

operationalization actions, from an institutional point

of view, (4) to consider perspectives on crucial issues,

such as mobility, that HEI faces in a context of

internationalization, and (5) to raise awareness of

policymakers and of teachers on what open and

online education is.

We first introduce the components of our

framework and we clarify the underlying concepts.

The framework, relying on a simple four-axes

approach is then presented. It is then used to address

the following questions: what does it mean to go

online? With what impact on the teaching practices?

How to integrate openness and associated concerns?

To conclude, the paper confirms the advantages of the

framework.

458

Jacqmot, C., Docq, F. and Deville, Y.

A Framework to Understand, Analyse and Describe Online and Open Education in Higher Education.

DOI: 10.5220/0009470704580465

In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2020) - Volume 1, pages 458-465

ISBN: 978-989-758-417-6

2 UNBUNDLING TEACHING

INTO FOUR COMPONENTS

The framework we propose is derived from Witthaus’

model (Witthaus, 2017), which unbundles teaching

activities into four components usually entangled in

regular face to face teaching. Unbundling these

components provides blocks that can opportunely be

assembled in various ways and helps to consider - and

discuss - the various ways of organizing teaching and

learning in the digital age. These four components are

content, learning pathway, interactions, and assessments.

Figure 1: The 4 components of teaching.

Content stands for the content to be learned, the

topics to be mastered.

Learning pathway (named ‘teaching’ in

Witthaus’ model) refers to how the students are

guided to process the content: what activities they are

asked to do in which order, how they are incited to

engage to create meaning from the different pieces of

content (reading, exercises, quizzes, etc.). Like

Nilson (2017) recalls, “interaction with content paves

the way for successful learning” and is therefore of

high stake: instructional designers are well aware of

the importance of providing learning pathways that

provide clear and meaningful guidance on how to

interact with the content to be learned.

Interactions (named ‘support’ in Witthaus’

model). Effective learning requires some forms of

interaction and collaboration: students-students

interactions, group interaction (whole-class or small

groups) and teacher-student interactions

(communications and discussions including

feedbacks, diagnosing, etc.) (Moore, 2005). The

development of a learning community is the main

concern of this third component.

Assessment focuses on the formal recognition of

learning outcomes in the context of an accreditation

system (credentials) wherein summative

Course [Def. 5]. (n.d). In Collins Dictionary. Retrieved January

27, 2020, from

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/course.

performances provide opportunities for learners to

demonstrate their competencies and knowledge

mastery.

3 STARTING DEFINITIONS

Before proposing a systematic approach to online

learning and openness, keywords must be defined.

Online. We mean by ‘online’ anything that can be

found (objects) or happens (actions) on the internet.

In a rather broad way, Bates (2016) defines ‘online

learning’ as “any form of learning conducted partly

or wholly over the Internet” and insists that online

learning is “a mode of delivery, a way of delivering

education to learners, not a particular method of

teaching. Online learning can support a wide range

of teaching methods”. Hence there is frequent

confusion and misunderstanding when speaking

about online learning (Bayne, 2015). Indeed, online

elements may contribute to teaching designs in

different ways and proportions. Inspired by Bates

(2016)’s “continuum of online learning” and Allen

(2016)’s “online course classification”, we propose to

consider the following thresholds to distinguish four

different categories of online learning:

 Web-assisted: 1%-29% of the teaching components

are online. That means that most of the course still

happens face to face (in the class), maybe with some

digital “classroom aids” (Bates, 2016).

 Blended: between 30%-79% of the teaching

components are delivered online, i.e. can be found

or happen online, outside the classroom.

 Online: 80% or more of the teaching components

can be found or happen online, outside the

classroom. Allen adds “typically have no face-to-

face meetings”. We are then in a distance learning

context.

 Full online: 100% of the teaching components

happen online.

Course. The concept of ‘course’ has different

understandings. It may be “series of lessons or

lectures on a particular subject”

“usually leading to

an exam or qualification”

and may vary from a “unit

of teaching” level to an “entire programme of

studies” level

Course [Def. A1]. (n.d). In Cambridge Dictionary.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/dictionnaire/anglais/course.

Wikipedia (collective authors), 2019. Course (education).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_(education).

A Framework to Understand, Analyse and Describe Online and Open Education in Higher Education

459

As part of our clarification framework, we

propose to define a course as “a set of resources and

activities intentionally combined and designed to

allow learners to reach announced learning

outcomes related to a specific topic (knowledge,

skills, and competencies)”. This set is time-framed,

supported by dedicated instructors, course team,

tutors (or any other designation), and usually leads to

assessments that provide a form (that may vary) of

credentials. Each one of the Witthaus’ derived

teaching elements is involved in the proposed

definition: content (resources), learning pathway

(intentional design to trigger learning), interactions

(learning community during a period) and assessment

(acknowledgment of mastery).

Open Education. Openness in education has

different meanings (see for example the discussions

in Weller (2014 and 2018), and Economides (2018)).

Among all the shades and “silos of practices” (Weller,

2018) of this concept we focus on two key values:

 The ‘share’ value: Open education means to share

any kind of educational production (learning

resources, teaching strategy, teaching tools, etc.)

in a way that allows others to use it, distribute it,

transform it, etc. It involves the idea that what

others share is valuable and invites teachers to

seize and exploit productions shared by others.

This value promotes the vision of a global

collaborative community of educators and

learners.

 The ‘open access’ value: “Open education is

designed for access because it removes the

traditional barriers that people often face in

obtaining knowledge, credits, and degrees —

including but not limited to cost. Access is

fundamental to open education and is the basic

principle that has informed and driven the open

education movement from its inception.”

(Blessinger, 2016)

By combining those two perspectives we propose

to define Open Education as “a movement aiming to

make education universal, accessible to as many

people as possible. (…) It involves sharing

educational resources and practices to delete access

barriers. Learning opportunities are then multiplied

and invite every learner to seize them.” (translated

from Mathelart (2019)).

4 A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH

TO ONLINE LEARNING AND

OPENNESS

Our four components model (Fig.1), complemented

by the definitions of the terms online, courses and

open education, allows us to propose a framework

which allows us to systematically address the

following questions:

1. How to go online? How may each of the above

components be supported by online learning?

2. What teaching and learning practices are suited

for. the different components?

3. How to share and give the world access to open

resources and teaching components?

For each type of components, we address some issues

and concerns, at an institutional level, when adopting

openness.

Model 1: (Open) Educational Resources

Educational Resources. Educational resources are

any content that helps teachers to teach and students

to learn: presentation, publication, visuals, statistical

tables, etc. In this model, we intentionally exclude the

notion of learning pathways between pieces of

content.

Going Online with Resources. Online digitalized

version of educational resources come in a wide

variety of forms and formats such as online

presentations or animations, infographics, 3D

visualization, video, webcasts, audios, podcasts,

worksheets, publications, maps, visuals,

manipulative, apps, software, simulations, and many

others as listed by Shank (2014).

Teaching and Learning Practices. Online resources

are educational materials for formal classroom

teaching and personal learning outside the school.

Their content and their granularity usually encompass

topics in such a way that they are considered as an

enrichment to in-class activity or support to confirm,

deepen or enlarge students’ understanding after the

class. As the learning pathway is missing, guidance

provided by the teacher remains necessary. Typically,

online educational resources are used in the context

of web-assisted courses, in which most of the course

happens in the class (Figure 2.A).

Openness. Online educational resources are called

Open Educational Resources (OER’s) whenever

“they are released under an open license that permits

no-cost access, use, adaptation, and redistribution by

others with no or limited restrictions” (Miao, 2016).

CSEDU 2020 - 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

460

They are therefore characterized by free access and

perpetual “open license” such as a Creative Commons

(CC) license: once published, OER’s can be

repurposed and adapted, following their licensing

permission, which allows improving the content, to

update the resource or to make it more closely aligned

with the specific educational need. Openness refers

here to the 5R principles (Retain, Reuse, Revise,

Remix, Redistribute) (Wiley, 2019).

Some Issues and Challenges. Teachers can exploit

(open) educational resources provided by other

instructors, possibly belonging to another HEI while

remaining in charge of the pedagogical scenario, of

providing support to the students and of assessing

their new capacities. Teachers can also develop

online educational resources and release them in an

open mode by licensing them with a CC license.

Within a course, every mix is possible: part of the

content can be turned online but not open (accessible

to regular students only), or turned online and shared

openly (with anyone), or imported from other

instructors. (see Figure 2.B).

Figure 2: A (Web-based learning. Content, in blue, is

online) and 2.B (The mix of educational resources within a

course. Open is in green).

A double challenge one has to face is (a) to

familiarize and train teachers to distribute OER’s in

an adequate open licensing model and appropriate

formats, so anyone can use them, and (b) find OER’s

of quality.

OER’s are hosted on dedicated repositories most

of the time searchable by discipline, keywords, and

metadata (e.g. oercommons, Openstax, Merlot).

Institutional involvement in OER’s requires

investment whether to foster the development of

OER’s or to set up its repository.

Model 2: (Open) Courseware

Coursewares are learning objects that aggregate

contents and learning paths to form structured

coherent self-contained learning packages. They may

be complete and comprehensive for a set of learning

topics or offer partial coverage. Unlike courses (as we

define them), these modules are self-paced and are

not instructor-led.

Going Online with Learning Pathways. Online

coursewares are more than a collection of juxtaposed

online educational resources gathered on a web site;

they propose a relevant and accurate content with an

internal structure and a pedagogical organization that

addresses a coherent set of learning outcomes. They

may contain digital activities aiming to stretch, in a

formative way and a self-assessing mode, the abilities

of the students such as quizzes, flashcards, puzzles,

drills, etc.

Thanks to the most recent technology, the most

advanced activities are animated, interactive,

immersive and truly multimedia with rich content.

Using these self-paced learning objects, students

learn on their own by running them any number of

times at any time.

Teaching and Learning Practices. In this model,

both the content and the learning pathway are

available online. Used within a course by teachers,

coursewares find their place in blended courses in

which a significant part of face-to-face activities has

been replaced by self-paced online learning activities.

Remaining activities are those for which neither

educational resources nor courseware are available,

or which requires face-to-face interactions. Blended

learning remains an instructor-led activity that takes

place in a lecture hall, a classroom, or a lab (Figure

3.A). As stated by Weilandt (2019), “The majority of

reasons why educators choose to blend their courses

revolves around accessibility, pedagogical

effectiveness and course interaction”. Blended

learning is a multi-faced concept that requires “sound

pedagogical planning to create well-paced and

coherent learning experience for students”.

Therefore, instructional design might be quite

challenging for teachers who are not used to blended

learning conception. By unbundling components,

Witthaus’ model helps teachers to give attention

systematically on 3 major quality concerns: (a, related

to component 2) to focus on the conception of

engaging online courseware by providing situations

and effective tasks that cognitively engage learners

(in contrast, for instance, to page-turning material);

(b, related to components 2 and 3 ) to seek for a global

coherence between online courseware and in-class

learning activities; (c, related to all components) by

keeping in view the required alignment between

learning outcomes, activities, and assessments.

Openness. As OER’s, open coursewares are online

resources characterized by a free and perpetual grant

A Framework to Understand, Analyse and Describe Online and Open Education in Higher Education

461

of the 5R permissions through an open license, to

share with the whole world a significant part of

pedagogical contents and approaches.

When using open coursewares, teachers exploit

open coursewares provided by other instructors,

possibly belonging to another HEI, while remaining

in charge of the support provided to the students, of

the organization of human to human interactions

(students-students and instructor-students) and the

assessment of their new capacities, as shown in

Figure 3.B. This scenario could be further detailed by

decomposing the non-open part from the open one, as

in Figure 2.B.

Figure 3: A (Blended Learning) and 3.B (Open

courseware).

Some Issues and Challenges. Besides gaining time,

using open coursewares can improve teaching

practices thanks to the exposure to teaching

approaches from colleagues from different

backgrounds. Adaptability is a mandatory keyword to

foster reuse. Teachers who release open coursewares

have to find an appropriate trade-off between tailor-

made (and sometimes culture-specific) content and

generic, flexible learning objects. Availability and

compatibility are also of concern. Two modes of

diffusion are encountered: online version (hosted on

a specific software dedicated to educational purposes,

such as an LMS or a web platform) or downloadable

files hosted in an often dedicated open repository

(such as the MIT courseware initiative or the Saylor

Academy project). In this latter version, the open

courseware must be downloaded and installed on a

target computer and cross-compatibility is a concern.

In the former, the courseware can directly be

exploited and compatibility with devices is a priority.

Using pre-existing coursewares can save time for

teachers and costs to students (Hilton, 2014).

Accessibility and findability of quality coursewares

must be taken into account by HEIs wanting to

promote open coursewares. Finally, as in OER’s,

maintenance and sustainability are challenges that

institutions should consider when adopting an open

strategy, as documented in Atkins (2007).

NB: The first two models both relate to resources. In

this context, openness is mainly a matter of “share”

value: access, use, and reuse, licensing, dissemination

and discovery are of the greatest importance. This

opens up a new way of mobility, besides the students’

mobility: the mobility of resources and coursewares.

The last two components, which we are now going to

address, relate to the learning experience one

provides to students. Openness becomes here a matter

of “open access” value. This opens the door to

another form of mobility: a virtual mobility of

students.

Model 3: (Open) Course

The combination of content, instruction paths, and

human interactions addresses a more complete model

of education. Interactions are designed to support and

deepen learning and enhance participant engagement.

Yet, in this model, the final assessment leading to an

official credential is not covered here and is discussed

in the 4

model.

Going Online with Human Interactions. Model 3

implies interaction moments that have to be planned.

Unlike online courseware, available anytime, an

online course is structured around time-framed

sessions: ‘course runs’ that set out the start and end

dates.

A wide range of interactions may occur within an

online course: interactions managed at the level of the

whole course learning community, interactions into

smaller groups or between two persons. They may be

designed to happen asynchronously, between

instructors and students or between students, by

means, for instance, of discussion forums

(opportunities to questions and answers, invitations to

share experiences or confront opinions, etc.) or using

collaborative writing tools (elaborate a glossary

together; gather a collection of concrete examples of

how the topic being learned is applying in the daily

life; etc.). Most LMS include functionalities that

support such interactions and collaborative

constructions, but external tools are sometimes used

(mail, blogs, social media…). Interactions may also

be designed to happen synchronously, which requires

scheduled meeting times: individual or group project

presentations; discussions about reading publications;

interactive feedbacks, etc.

If in a face-to-face classroom, interactions may

occur quite naturally, they may be less spontaneous in

an online course. Therefore, they must be explicitly

integrated into the pedagogical scenario and decisions

must be made by the teacher about the tools to be used

to create an effective learning experience.

CSEDU 2020 - 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

462

Teaching and Learning Practices. Technology

transcends teaching, and learning environments by

making possible online modalities that support

interactions, questions and answers, feedback,

collaboration, sharing, discussion, debate, peer

review, peer instruction, etc.

Keep in mind that in this third model, assessment

that leads to the acknowledgment of mastery and/or

the official credential is not covered, and therefore

does not happen online. The remaining components

may be organized fully online (Figure 4.A) or a

significant part but not all activities are online (Figure

4.B), leading respectively to Online Learning or

Blended Learning.

Figure 4: A (Online learning) and 4.B (Blended learning).

In both cases, the challenge is to make the best use of

available technologies to engage students in

interaction and collaboration. Empirical research

tends to favor online teaching and emphasizes that

high-quality interaction is one of the factors to take

into account (Miller, 2016). Our model helps teachers

to focus their attention on ways to engage students

outside traditional face-to-face courses, designated by

the blue areas in Fig 4.A and 4.B.

Openness. Opening an online course, i.e. a set of

timely framed activities and interactions within a

learning community, means opening the doors of a

virtual classroom to anyone in the world interested to

join. Openness here mainly concerns access. It's

about what's happening online on the internet.

Retaining, reusing, revising, remixing and

redistribution is not the point, even though the content

of an open online course might be openly licensed and

available to all. MOOCs (Massive Open Online

Courses) are striking examples of open online

courses. They are online courses accessible to anyone

with a computer and internet access. They are called

massive because the enrolment may range from

hundreds to several thousand. MOOCs are open

because no prerequisites nor major costs block

access. They are courses because they have a duration

and are associated with a comprehensive set of

learning outcomes. MOOCs contribute to Open

education by removing the profile entry barrier and

lowering the organizational and financial entry

barriers. Attending a MOOC is much more flexible

than attending an on-campus course. A lot of people

worldwide can attend online courses offered by far

away institutions they would never visit otherwise.

Yet it is not totally flexible; one has to register and

while some MOOCs are self-paced, the course run is

(maybe loosely) mostly time framed, with deadlines

to respect. Most of the MOOCs currently deliver a

credential (certificate of attendance or badge), which

has no academic but a symbolic value. In most cases,

MOOCs don’t provide any certification or credits.

MOOCs are thus fully compliant with Model 3, even

though things are changing. Credit-eligible MOOCs

are expanding and MOOCs could, therefore, shift to

Model 4 in a few years.

Some Issues and Challenges. Opening a course also

means that teachers may exploit MOOCs provided by

another university into their teaching. In this model,

the content to be learned, the learning pathway and

the interactions may be fully outsourced. A blended

model may also be encountered: a teacher exploits a

MOOC only for part of the content / learning pathway

/ interactions. For instance, the content of the MOOC

could be only a part of the course or the interactions

in the MOOC could be complemented by on-campus

sessions. In any case, the assessment and the

acknowledgment of mastery remain the responsibility

of the teacher.

To open the virtual doors of an online course to

the world, three conditions are needed: the course

must be supported by a dedicated team ready for a

massive audience; the instructional design must fit an

unknown and potentially massive number of learners

as well as an intercultural audience; the course must

be made visible and invite to enroll. This requires

financial and human resources, and HEIs should be

aware of the ‘long-term cost’ involved by the support

to interactions and maintenance from runs to runs.

Finally, MOOC platforms are not OER or

courseware repositories but are dedicated educational

platforms similar to LSM. HEIs rarely distributed

MOOCs themselves and partnership, therefore, have

to be established with MOOCs providers such as edX,

Coursera, etc.

Model 4: Full (Open) Course for Credits

This last model involves all of the four teaching

components, including the assessments of learning

leading to an official credential. We are not

considering here activities that allow self-regulation,

such as self-assessments, feedback or other forms of

A Framework to Understand, Analyse and Describe Online and Open Education in Higher Education

463

formative assessments, sometimes declined as OAR

(Gibson, 2016) in their open version and covered, in

our framework, by activities and interactions related

to the first three components.

Going Online with Assessments. Nilson (2017)

reminds us that there are plenty of ways to take

advantage of the technology to design effective online

assessments and lists several integrity tools and

techniques to somehow overcome two major stakes,

cheating and identity usurpation. These techniques

range (Miller, 2016) from proctored assessments to

random exams (questions are randomly selected from

a database), anti-plagiarism tools, techniques to lock

down forbidden web sites or resources, facial

recognition software, analysis of the pattern of typing,

etc.

Openness. The stake of opening a full online course

for credits is to deliver to any learner, no matter their

profile and background and at a minimum cost,

official credentials that would be accepted as valuable

currency by any HEI or employer. Witthaus (2016)

speaks of “recognition and credentialization of

learning outcomes” by defining these two concepts

as follows. “Recognition: learning outcomes are

formally acknowledged by an educational institution

- or employer- which has or has not provided the

learning offer and which formally grants the learner

the right to access or progress in educational or

employment activities. Credentialisation: learning

outcomes are formally acknowledged by an

educational provider through the act of issuing a

credential to the learner, usually on the basis of

complete assessment”.

In our 4

model, when making use of a full open

online course, a teacher completely delegates the

teaching to a third party HEI. The whole course as

well as the assessment of learning takes place online

and is provided by another HEI, which takes in charge

the implementation of the four components, including

the credentialization of learning (fig 5.B). In the

context of HEIs and formal learning, this makes sense

only if the teacher and his/her institution recognize

the learning outcomes and the credits delivered by the

third party HEI.

According to the degree of openness, we speak of

full online courses for credits (SPOCs for credits) or

MOOCs for credits. This corresponds to one of the

variants of Friesen and Murry (2011)’s model “Open

Learning 2.0” in which “any learner can access any

learning content, facilitated by different educators.

Assessment can take place at different locations and

the body that credentialises learning can be different

from the educational institution of the teacher.

Different educational institutions or employers would

decide to recognise or not recognise the learning

outcomes”.

Figure 5: A (Full Online Course (SPOC) for credits) and

5.B (Full Open Online course (MOOC) for credits).

Some Issues and Challenges. This 4

model opens

the way to a new form of mobility, the virtual

mobility of students between partner institutions. It

ranges from virtual courses to virtual study programs

(Vriens, 2010). Virtual mobility is still a concept

under development and raises new challenges for

HEIs, as discussed in Witthaus (2016), such as digital

credentialization (digital certificates and digital

badges), policies and issues involved in the

recognition and awarding of ECTS credits

partnership and collaborative initiatives.

At the other end of the spectrum, teachers are

organizing online assessments. When openness and

exchanges are considered, assessing the learning

outcomes of a large number of students coming from

a variety of cultures might be quite challenging, in

terms of methods, exam marking time,

communication and feedback.

5 CONCLUSIONS

Based on Witthaus’ model, this paper presents a four-

pronged framework that provides a sound help to

describe, analyse and discuss systematically some ins

and outs of online learning and open education. The

advantages of such a framework is to unbundle

different levels of concerns that spontaneously arise

when speaking of ‘teaching in an open digital age’:

instructional design considerations, faculty support,

digital strategy definition, etc.

The framework is flexible and powerful; it also

allows us to describe and analyse alternative models

that are rarely encountered, such as the one Saylor

Academy (https://www.saylor.org/open/) relies on to

provide open coursewares (components 1 and 2) for

credits (components 4).

CSEDU 2020 - 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

464

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their

constructive comments to improve this paper.

REFERENCES

Allen, I.E., Seaman, F., Poulin R., & Straut T. T., 2016.

Online Report Card – Tracking Online Education in the

United States (full report). Babson Survey Research

Group and Quahog Research Group.

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED572777.pdf

(Retrieved December 2019)

Atkins, DE., Brown, JS., Hammond, AL., 2007. A Review

of the Open Educational Resources (OER) Movement:

Achievements, Challenges and new Opportunities.

Available at: http://tinyurl.com/2swqsg

Barker, P., Campbell, L., 2016. Technology Strategies for

Open Educational Resource Dissemination. In: Open

Education: International Perspectives in Higher

Education. Open Book Publishers. Cambridge.

Available at: http://books.openedition.org/obp/3542

(Retrieved January 2020)

Bayne, S., 2015. What's the matter with ‘technology-

enhanced learning’?, Learning, Media and

Technology, 40:1, 5-20, DOI: 10.1080/17439884.

2014.915851

Bates, T., 2016. Online learning for beginners: what is

online learning? In the blog Online Learning and

Distance Education Resources. Available on

https://www.tonybates.ca/2016/07/15/online-learning-

for-beginners-1-what-is-online-learning/ (Retrieved

December 2019).

Blessinger, P., Bliss, TJ., 2016. Introduction to Open

Education: Towards a Human Rights Theory. In: Open

Education: International Perspectives in Higher

Education. Open Book Publishers. Cambridge.

Available at http://books.openedition.org/obp/3539

Deville, Y., Jacqmot, C., 2018. Digital strategy at

UCLouvain: openness matters. In Open Education

Global Conference 2018, Delft.

Economides, A., Perifanou, M., 2018. Dimensions of

openness in MOOCs & OERs. Proceedings of

EDULEARN18 Conference.

Friesen, N., Murray, J., 2011. Open learning 2.0. Aligning

student, teacher and content for openness in education.

Learningspaces.org blog. Available at

http://learningspaces.org/papers/OpenLearning2.0.pdf.

Lebrun, M., Crasset, J., Guisset, M. et Vangrunderbeeck,

P., 2019. Enseignantes et enseignants à l'ère

numérique : profils, perceptions des apports du

numérique à l’apprentissage et usages dans la

formation. Rapport interne du Louvain Learning Lab.

UCLouvain, Louvain-La-Neuve.

Gibson, D., Ifenthaller, D. 2016. Open Assessment

Resources for Deeper Learning. In Open Education:

International Perspectives in Higher Education. Open

Book Publishers. Cambridge. Available at http://books.

openedition.org/obp/3582 (Retrieved January 2020).

Hilton, J. L., Robinson, T. J., Wiley, D., and Ackerman, J.

D., 2014. Cost-Savings Achieved in Two Semesters

through the Adoption of Open Educational Resources.

The International Review of Research in Open and

Distributed Learning, 15 (2).

Major, CH., 2015. Teaching Online: A Guide to Theory,

Research, and Practice. JHUP; Baltimore, 1st edition.

Mathelart, C., 2019.

Open Education. Quelques clés pour

s’en emparer. Les Cahiers Du Louvain Learning Lab

6–2019. Presses Universitaires de Louvain. Louvain-la-

Neuve.

Miao F., Mishra S., McGreal R., 2016. Open Educational

Resources: Policy, Costs and Transformation.

UNESCO and Commonwealth of Learning. Available

at: http://hdl.handle.net/11599/2306 (Retrieved January

2020)

Miller M., 2016. Minds Online: Teaching Effectively with

Technology. Harvard University Press. Reprint Edition.

Moore, M. G., Kearsley, G., 2005. Distance Education: A

Systems view, Wadsworth. Belmont, CA.

Nilson L.B., Goodson L.A., 2017. Online Teaching at its

Best, Jossey-Bass; 1st edition.

Shank J.D. , 2014. Interactive open educational resources:

A guide to finding, choosing, and using what’s out there

to transform college teaching. Jossey-bass. San

Francisco, CA.

Vriens, M., Van Petegem, W., Op de Beeck, I., Achten, M.,

Gómez, 2010. Virtual mobility as an alternative or

complement to physical mobility. In EDULEARN

Conference 2010, Spain.

Weilandt, J., 2019.Digital Teaching and Learning at the

UOF L. Available at: https://eapatuofl.pressbooks.com/

(Retrieved December 2019).

Weller M. ,2014. The Battle for Open: How openness won

and why it doesn't feel like victory. London: Ubiquity

Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/bam

Weller M., 2018. Mapping the Open Education Landscape:

Citation Network Analysis of Historical Open and

Distance Education Research. Open Praxis, 10(2).

Wiley D., 2020. Defining the "Open" in Open Content and

Open Educational Resources. Available on

http://opencontent.org/definition (Retrieved April

2019)

Witthaus, G., 2017. Recognition of open learning and the

unbundling of higher education. EMOOCs 2017

conference, Madrid. Available on Slide share

https://www.slideshare.net/witthaus/recognition-of-

open-learning-and-the-unbundling-of-higher-education

(last retrieved December the 10th, 2019).

Witthaus, G., Inamorato dos Santos. A., Childs, M.,

Tannhäuser,A., Conole, G., Nkuyubwatsi,B., Punie, Y.,

2016. Validation of Non-formal MOOC-based

Learning: An Analysis of Assessment and Recognition.

Practices in Europe (OpenCred). DOI:10.2791/809371

A Framework to Understand, Analyse and Describe Online and Open Education in Higher Education

465