A Framework for an Open Education Supply Chain Network
Barbara Class
, Felicia Soulikhan
, Sandrine Favre
and Naoufel Cheikhrouhou
TECFA, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva,
Pont d’Arve 40, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland
Geneva School of Business Administration, University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland (HES-SO),
1227 Geneva, Switzerland
Keywords: Open Education, Supply Chain, Value, Resources, 21
Century Skills, Commons.
Abstract: Open Education (OE) as a concept has been around for some years. Yet, a part from Open Educational
Resources and Open Science, teachers and researchers are usually not aware of it. The aim of this paper is to
conceptualise OE from the perspective of supply chain management (SCM), implicitly positioning it in the
world of opens, the commons, the state and the market. Within a design-based approach, the concepts related
to OE and SCM are presented, discussed and integrated in a novel framework dealing with the management
of OE ecosystem. Findings show that keywords of the Open Education Supply Chain are cocreation, agile
design and authority. The framework invites to create value from resources in a holistic way, balancing the
commons, the state and the market in each stakeholder.
“Knowledge is open if anyone is free to access, use,
modify, and share it subject, at most, to measures
that preserve provenance and openness”
(OpenKnowledgeFoundation, no date).
Open movements are numerous, all spreading
from a “non-open existing entity”. For example, Open
Science stems from science as conducted in the last
decades and which showed its limits. Open Source
Software was one of the first open movements that
gave the tone in the computing community. Open
Scholarship, Open Galleries, Libraries, Archives and
Museums (Open GLAM), Open Source Hardware,
Open Government, Open Enterprises, Open
Knowledge are but examples towards the open
To ground the knowledge economy started by the
Bologna process (Huisman et al., 2012), winds of
change are blowing on education. For a quick
reminder, the Bologna process aimed at harmonising
the different European higher education systems to
facilitate mobility and employment across countries.
In parallel, 20 years ago, a consequent reflexion
started, laying the legal ground for opens and
commons to exist: the Creative Commons (Stacey &
Hinchliff Pearson, 2017). Both the Bologna process
and the Creative Commons foundations make OE
possible and realistic today.
The overall objective of this paper is to suggest a
framework for Open Education (Stacey, 2018) in the
perspective of digital supply chain management
(Garay-Rondero et al., 2019). Education rests on
numerous distributed actors and conceptualising it
from supply chain (SC) perspectives makes sense,
especially for Open Education (OE), which represents
an emerging sustainable paradigm shift.
It is a timely issue to consider SC in education to
imagine how institutions and different stakeholders
will be able to implement OE (i.e. deliver open
badges; create open certifications). To do this, it is
important to overcome the costs of innovation and
connect the different opens together. The ultimate
goal being to achieve an “Open Ecosystem in which
the different components interact and support each
other in interconnected ways (FOSTER, 2018;
Santos-Hermosa, 2019; Stacey, 2018). OE is THE
Class, B., Soulikhan, F., Favre, S. and Cheikhrouhou, N.
A Framework for an Open Education Supply Chain Network.
DOI: 10.5220/0010452506170624
In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2021) - Volume 1, pages 617-624
ISBN: 978-989-758-502-9
2021 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
example where all these “Opens” can interconnect.
The first reason is related to the fact that stakeholders
in education are usually involved in all three major
resources’ users and value creation players – the
commons, the state and the market. The second
reason is that education is everywhere and can
potentially be connected to hardly any open
The paper is outlined as follows. First, a
methodology is presented followed by the
development of the research background with a
discussion of the 21
century skills and value
creation. The framework of supply chain
management (SCM) for OE is finally presented and
its features are discussed with some examples.
The idea presented in this position paper -
conceptualise OE as a SCM - originates from a
research project. It is a Swiss National Science
Foundation (SNSF) funded project on OE called
Open Education for Research Methodology Teaching
across the Mediterranean (Class, 2020; Class &
Akkari, Accepted). Methodologically speaking, it
utilises Design-Based Research (DBR) (McKenney
& Reeves, 2019). DBR is iterative and starts from a
problem encountered by practitioners in this case,
higher education teachers’ implementation of OE
practices. Starting from the literature and from a
partnership between researchers, teachers and
stakeholders, it seeks to build a solution that is
theoretically backed. The process consists of
identifying the problem, suggesting solutions,
designing a prototype, evaluating scientifically the
prototype and extracting design rules to guide the
next design cycle. Cycles repeat until sustainable
solutions are found at the levels of practice and theory
and it is for this reason that DBR is known as « use
inspired basic research » (Stokes, 1997). Theoretical
and practical contributions are relevant beyond the
local context and provide insights for other similar
Focusing on the conceptualisation of OE in SC
perspectives helps understand who is involved and
how and model potential use case scenario. The
framework and scenario stem from the literature
review and form solutions that will later be
operationalised in prototypes and evaluated. The sub-
research question associated to this piece of research
is: How can the conceptualisation of Open Education
in terms of supply chain contribute to providing
concrete answers to Open Education practices in
higher education?
3.1 21
Century Skills
It is a given that a certain percentage of jobs in 2030
have not been invented yet - 9% (according to
McKinsey cited by Reynolds Lewis, 2019). The
literature (Rios et al., 2020; van Laar et al., 2020),
organisations like the World Economic Forum, and
the market (WorldEconomicForum, 2016) agree on a
set of skills that need to be trained despite being able
to train for specific skills required for a known job
(Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Figure 1: Prospective most demanded skills for 2020
(WorldEconomicForum, 2016).
Figure 2: Skills needed according to the literature and to the
market’s demands (Rios et al., 2020).
How to capitalise on skills to create value remains
a relevant question in an ecosystem where change is
the rule.
CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
3.2 Value Creation
Value is shared by both concepts central to this paper
- SC and OE. Value can be defined from many
perspectives but the way social learning - best known
as learning within communities of practice - defines
it is in line with OE and is selected for this position
paper. Value is defined in terms of agency and
meaningfulness of participation. More precisely,
participating is perceived as conducting to a
difference that matters. Looking with finer
granularity at value, it can be decomposed in four
different actions which happen in a linear modality.
Generating value in the sense of moving towards
making a difference is the first action. Translating this
generated value is the second action and consists in
transforming something of value. This action is a
pivot articulating value and social learning. Framing
social value represents the third action and consists in
formulating expectations for the creation of new
value. Finally, the fourth action, which is evaluating
social learning, seeks to investigate the difference
learning is making or not (Wenger-Trayner &
Wenger-Trayner, 2020, pp. 44-45).
Communities of practice and commons share
concepts like value and agency. As a matter of fact,
commons are understood as meaningful actions
undertaken by a certain number of citizens, who want
to exercise their agency, and get organised for a given
cause outside of the state or the market (Stacey &
Hinchliff Pearson, 2017). Commons, when concerned
with learning are quasi synonymous of communities
of practice. Authors have been working on
communities of practice for more than 30 years (Lave
& Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) and they now strive
to better understand value (Wenger-Trayner &
Wenger-Trayner, 2020). Value is to be understood as
a set of six phases of a cycle within the larger four
actions mentioned above (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Value creation according to Wenger & Wenger
(2020, p. 75).
The first one is immediate value – gathering what
happened and personal experiences from activities
and interactions. The second one is potential value,
knowledge capital – what has been produced and
which value will potentially be realised in the future.
Third comes applied value changes in personal
practices ensuing from leveraging knowledge capital.
The fourth is realised value what aspects of one’s
performance achievements are affected by using
knowledge capital. The fifth is enabling value -
learning how to enable learning and the sixth is
strategic value - negotiating learning imperatives.
The seventh is orienting value - situating the social
learning space in the broader landscape and
transformative value - recognising broader and/or
deeper transformations social learning can leverage
(Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2020; Wenger
et al., 2011). Enabling, orienting, strategic and
transformative values act more on the macro level and
build upon more individual values situated at a micro
level - immediate, potential, applied and realised
(Wenger-Trayner et al., 2019; Wenger-Trayner &
Wenger-Trayner, 2020).
Social learning spaces are related to open learning in
the sense that it is realised outside of formal
institutional frameworks. Engagement, agency that
individuals leverage to make social learning happen
are very present in Open Education. In higher
education, OE issues are addressed in reference to the
European framework suggested by Inamorato dos
Santos et al. (2016). This framework consists of 4
transversal dimensions (technology, strategy,
leadership, quality) that drive the 6 core educational
practices identified as openable (content, pedagogy,
recognition, collaboration, research and access).
Concerning core educational practices, in
accordance with Stacey (2018)’s roadmap, OE is
discussed in terms of Open Educational Resources
(OER) – how to produce, adopt and adapt them
(Stracke et al., 2019; Weller et al., 2018), and in terms
of OE practices - teaching openness (Nascimbeni et
al., 2018) and conceptual perspectives (Cronin &
Maclaren, 2018). Issues of Open Admission, Open
Recognition, Open Assessment and Open Credentials
are discussed at the theoretical level (Wiley, 2017),
and at the cultural change level (Chiappe et al., 2016).
Open Education Practices (Cronin, 2017), assembling
them all and Open Competencies (Wiley, 2017) are
also discussed. OE practices can only take place if all
interconnected components are present and active -
1. Immediate
2. Potential
3. A
4. Realised
Conversations with
Broader effect
What makes it possible
with broader
1- Your experience of i
2- What
et out of i
3- What you do with i
4- Th
A Framework for an Open Education Supply Chain Network
Open Admission, Open Competencies, Open
Educational Resources, Open Assessments and Open
Credentials (Wiley, 2017).
The feedbacks from the field, in the form of
concrete experiences with OE, are starting to be
shared (García-Holgado et al., 2020). Concerning
quality, a first OE quality framework, in reference to
ISO/IEC 40180, has been suggested (Stracke, 2019).
At the strategic and leadership levels, major OE
enablers are i) a clear policy priority assigned to OE;
ii) an awareness-raising on OE, targeting leaders and
educators; and iii) capacity-building in OE for
educators and other stakeholders (Inamorato dos
Santos et al., 2017). Finally, concerning technology,
projects like QualiChain
work on smart open badges
solutions and a reflexion on technological compliant
solutions is on-going (Coëtlogon, 2019).
5.1 Physical Supply Chains
Value is targeted by supply chains. Supply comes
from offering support. Etymologies of the concept in
French and English are very complementary, related
to offering support backed with mathematical
. SC principles usually consist of
designing, managing and controlling physical,
information and financial flows. The idea is to
consider OE as complex service SCs in which
learners exercise their agency to create their own
academic path. Through a number of academic nodes,
which may create known problems such as
bottlenecks, inadequate workload/capacity ratio, etc.,
diverse and creative paths can be created. The
rationale is to consider the principles of SCM concept
apply for OE ecosystems.
Constructs of SCM entail four components. First
comes the SCM components divided into structural
management components - e.g. planning and control
methods, workflow activity structure, organisational
structure, communication and information flow
facility structure, knowledge management, and
behavioural management components - e.g.
management methods, power and leadership, risk and
reward, culture and attitude, trust and commitment.
Second comes the SCM processes - e.g. customer and
supplier relationship management, manufacturing
flow management, product development and
commercialisation. Third comes the SC network
structure - e.g. upstream suppliers, distributors, end-
users. Finally comes the SC flows - e.g. material flow
(inbound), finished products/goods flow (outbound),
services flow, information flow, knowledge flow,
financial resources flow, return flows of
goods/services (Garay-Rondero et al., 2019).
At the market level, obstacles associated with SCs
are usually lack of competence, lack of visibility,
malfunctioning models, out-dated technologies, and
long response times (Queiroz et al., 2019). Business
managers must thus constantly improve their
processes, anticipate and adapt to increasingly
changing customer preferences in a 4.0 economy
where digital technology and disruption has taken
competition to the next level (Koh, 2017).
5.2 Digital Supply Chains
A Digital supply chain (DSC) is defined as a set of
interconnected activities that take place interactively
between suppliers and customers, and which are
processed using new technologies (Büyüközkan &
Göçer, 2018). DSC has the potential to offer a range
of practices that can significantly reduce costs,
increase product availability, improve access to
information, and enhance the responsiveness,
collaboration capabilities, visibility and resilience of
the entire SC. In addition, two topics are discussed: i)
the implementation of digital technologies in the DSC
to leverage new relationships between suppliers and
customers; and ii) the roles these technologies have in
transforming SC capabilities and operational
performance (Ehie & Ferreira, 2019). Moreover,
impact such as the integration of physical flows with
digital technologies in a DSC has shown to improve
visibility, responsiveness, robustness and resilience,
while enabling the optimisation of organisational
performance (Gunasekaran et al., 2017).
The different models existing in the literature are
inspiring for an educational context but would need
consistent adaptation to comply with the needs of OE,
e.g. consider the learner as a co-actor in the chain and
not as a consumer of a ready-made product; consider
the chain as a network to break its linearity.
5.3 Goals of Commons, the State and
the Market
Two questions need to be addressed. The first relates
to the use of resources: how to use them? And the
logistique; https://www.etymonline.com/word/supply
CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
second relates to the goals of different stakeholders
towards resources: what are the goals of each
stakeholder towards resources? The market aims at
maximising the utility of a resource to, in turn,
maximise monetary value. The state has different
goals and aims at balancing the market to cater for
social and cultural needs of citizens. The commons
have yet different goals: they seek to maximise
“access, equity, distribution, participation,
innovation, and sustainability” (Stacey & Hinchliff
Pearson, 2017, p. 7).
The main principle for commons is a principle of
abundance (and not scarcity). For example, the open
source movement has gained recognition for its
unique community efforts of reliability, scalability
and quality through independent peer review. Giving
control to citizens has given rise to a new way of
measuring value, namely one associated with a
network effect. Value is measured through the
number of people who participate and use a given
product (Stacey & Hinchliff Pearson, 2017).
The different open movements are an invitation to
get involved as stakeholders instead of being a
“passive recipient” of something prepackaged for by
a supplier who knows exactly what is needed. This
operationalises into value creation system in which
multiple parties are adding value into a process. Value
is involved in complex networks between suppliers
and customers and is constructed in these
interactions. In addition, the created value is best
understood as an offering rather than a product. An
offering is an artefact designed to more effectively
enable and organise value co-production (Stacey,
2020). The idea of making change and heading
towards sustainability is also present in the open
movements (Chan et al., 2020).
The academic landscape has been undergoing
important changes in the last decades. From
privileged knowledge providers, universities turned
into a factory mode where society dictated immediate
competences needed. A dialogical perspective is now
emerging, where universities and societies network to
build societal value and human worth, considering
higher education a place to develop academic
professional learning and citizenship (Norgard et al.,
2019). In relationship to this changing landscape,
social forms of learning in the sense of commons and
communities of practice are developing and raise
increased interest (McDonald & Cater-Steel, 2017).
The idea presented in the paper is to make use of
the principles in managing SCs and networks and
adapt them to OE issues. There are three main layers
of SCM to be considered: i) the design phase of the
SC, which consists of developing ‘roads’ and ‘nodes’
through which physical, information and financial
flows will be managed; ii) the planning phase of the
flows, through advanced planning systems; and, iii)
the control of the different flows at the operation
Some basic and fundamental principles from
digital supply chain management are adapted to OE.
The flows considered are the flows of the different
participants involved in an educational system, no
matter their academic background or their geographic
location. The nodes considered are the different
educational institutions taking part in any given
training – undergraduate or postgraduate programme
within the educational world. The main principles are
featured in terms of flow management, bottleneck
management and queuing networks management.
Flow management: A flow in OE is constituted of
students requesting to participate to courses in order
to get credits, certificates or diplomas. They are
considered as intelligent agents that could influence
their own path and dynamically change it according
to their own interactions with the remaining
intelligent agents. Therefore, a dynamic management
of the Open Education Supply Chain (OESC) is
Bottleneck management: The OE nodes could be
either physical (face-to-face training) or online (on-
line training) or blended (both online and face-to-
face). Therefore, bottlenecks in the OESC can occur
when the number of open positions for
participants/students is limited with respect to the
number of participants requesting the use of a specific
node. This issue is much more important in the case
of face-to-face presence requested by some
institutions. Therefore, bottleneck management
principles are considered in that case, with solutions
that can vary from the increase of the physical
capacity of a specific node to the dynamic rerouting
of the agents to different nodes that can provide the
same educational level and quality needed.
Queuing networks management: In the case
where the participants request physical facilities,
scheduling techniques could be used.
Moving away from linear processes (Stacey &
Wiley, no date), talking of an Open Education Supply
Chain seems more appropriate. The framework
should be completely disruptive, redefining
A Framework for an Open Education Supply Chain Network
components, processes, network structure and flows
in reference to Garay-Rondero et al. (2019)s work
above mentioned.
At this preliminary phase, the physical and digital
SC for OE would start at stage 5 of the innovation
maturity model for technology adoption by teachers
(Eduvista, 2010-2014) - empower stakeholders. Stage
5, is about redefining and innovating use with
technology, supporting new learning services,
moving towards agile teaching and considering
learners as co-designers of the learning journey.
This would reflect the paradigm shift that is
undergoing in higher education. This shift is
somewhat similar to the one that occurred in the
Middle Ages when universities were created. At that
time, knowledge started to step out from the sole
religious powers to spread into civil powers. Today,
with the Internet, the globalisation and the different
Open movements, knowledge is stepping out from
universities. It is stepping out of universities that
represent the state to spread into the Commons, i.e.
the civil society.
Key concepts of the OESC are: cocreation, agile
design and authority. Authority because stakeholders
who deliver training content, evaluate competences,
etc. must be recognised as competent for doing what
they are doing across market, commons and state.
Cocreation of learning paths, learning activities, etc.
are guiding principles to empower learners as active
and intelligent agents, co-creators of their learning
experience. Agile design is closely related to co-
creation and relates to ideas about 21st century skills
needed but do not have a ready-made answer.
Trying to feature out roles in such an ecosystem,
universities, in partnership with commons, could be
the ones accountable for i) creating competence
frameworks, ii) identifying Technological
Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (Mishra &
Koehler, 2006) per micro domains and iii) assessing
knowledge and competences. Learners could be
developing active leadership to decide upon their
learning, knowledge and competence development
paths. The market, in partnership with commons,
could be the ones who decide where to lead human
mankind on the earth (e.g. ecological and sanitary
crises) and create new jobs accordingly.
To summarise, as shown in Figure 4, each
stakeholder is a unified entity composed of parts that
have been kept separate till now (cf. colours of the
circle indicate the mainstream of each entity). These
different entities interact and work closely together to
create aligned value from resources.
Figure 4: Towards an Open Education Supply Chain.
This paper suggests that it is possible to conceive an
Open Education Supply Chain at the theoretical level.
Key to the SC is the idea of generating value, which
is also at the heart of open movements. Generating
value is done in a process of four steps: moving
forward while making a difference, translating the
generated value, framing social value and evaluating
value (Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2020).
Traditionally, SC’s role is designing, planning,
managing and controlling physical, financial and
information flows. Considering OE as service supply
chains empowers learners. They can make use of
agency to create their own academic path within
which they can develop skills and knowledge.
Advantages of digital supply chains are reduced costs
(e.g. textbooks published as Open Educational
Resources are totally free), increased product
availability (e.g. the same textbook can be
downloaded as many times as wished), improved
access to information (i.e. the only condition to access
it is possessing a device that is connected to the
Internet) and enhanced responsiveness, collaboration
capabilities, visibility and resilience of the entire
supply chain (e.g. the textbook can easily be
augmented and users alerted).
The concept of Open Education Supply Chain
makes sense, because the paradigm shift takes
knowledge outside of universities, bringing it to the
commons. Three main levels have to be considered:
the design phase of the supply chain, which consists
of developing graphs consisting of networks of
CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
‘roads’ and ‘nodes’ through which flows can run; the
planning phase, which develops learning paths and
skills as objectives; and, finally, the control of the
different flows at the operation level, which calls for
re-routing and scheduling within the network,
considering the potential huge number of learners.
The framework is an attempt to tackle the
complexity of the OE ecosystem that calls for
institutional autonomy of the ‘Universities’ and for
self-management when it comes to learners. This
research work will be completed by implementing the
conceptual Open Education Supply Chain into a
prototype to evaluate the challenges when put into
practice. In parallel, future research could analyse
existing but not yet fully unveiled Open Education
Supply Chains.
This paper takes place at the very start of an SNSF
funded project entitled Open Education for Research
Methodology Teaching across the Mediterranean.
This work is partially funded by the Réseau de
Competences de Suisse Occidentale (RCSO) under
the Grant 103483 RPNP.
Büyüközkan, G., & Göçer, F. (2018). Digital Supply Chain:
Literature review and a proposed framework for future
research. Computers in Industry, 97, 157-177.
Chan, L., Hall, B., Piron, F., Tandon, R., & Williams, L.
(2020). La science ouverte au-delà du libre accès : Pour
et avec les communautés. Un pas vers la décolonisation
des savoirs. Préparé pour la Commission canadienne
pour l’UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.394
Chiappe, A., Pinto, R., & Arias, V. (2016). Open
Assessment of Learning: A Meta-Synthesis.
International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 17(6), 44-61. https://doi.org/
Class, B. (2020). Features for an International Learning
Environment in Research Education. International
Conference on Computer Supported Education, On-
Class, B., & Akkari, A. (Accepted). Le projet RESET-
Francophone : vers une formation ouverte et libre à la
méthodologie de la recherche en éducation.
L’éducation en débats : analyse comparée.
Coëtlogon, P. (2019). Vers une blockchain dédiée à
l’éducation, capable de certifier les diplômes comme
les droits de propriété intellectuelle ? Actualités du
droit, Kluwer. https://www.actualitesdudroit.fr/
Cronin, C. M. G., & Maclaren, I. (2018). Conceptualising
OEP: A review of theoretical and empirical literature in
Open Educational Practices. Open Praxis, 10, 127-143.
Eduvista. (2010-2014). Innovation Maturity Model.
Retrieved 25 mai from http://files.eun.org/fcl/eduvista/
Ehie, I., & Ferreira, L. M. D. F. (2019). Conceptual
Development of Supply Chain Digitalization
Framework. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 52(13), 2338-2342.
FOSTER. (2018). The Open Science Training Handbook.
Garay-Rondero, C. L., Martinez-Flores, J. L., Smith, N. R.,
Caballero Morales, S. O., & Aldrette-Malacara, A.
(2019). Digital supply chain model in Industry 4.0.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management.
García-Holgado, A., García-Peñalvo, F. J., Vázquez-
Ingelmo, A., Nascimbeni, F., Padilla-Zea, N., Burgos, D.,
Higuera, C., Hvarchilkova, D., Teixeira, A., Ehlers, U.
D., Bonaudo, P., & Brunton, J. (2020). Handbook of
successful open teaching practices. OpenGame
Consortium. https://repositorio.grial.eu/handle/grial/
Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N., & Papadopoulos, T.
(2017). Information technology for competitive
advantage within logistics and supply chains: A review.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 99, 14-33. https://doi.org/
Huisman, J., Adelman, C., Hsieh, C., Shams, F., & Wilkins,
S. (2012). Europe's Bologna process and its impact on
global higher education In D. K. Deardorff, H. D. Wit, &
J. D. Heyl (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of International
Higher Education (pp. 81-100). SAGE Publications, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.4135/978145221 8397
Inamorato dos Santos, A., Nascimbeni, F., Bacsich, P.,
Atenas, J., Aceto, S., Burgos, D., & Punie, Y. (2017).
Policy Approaches to Open Education
Inamorato dos Santos, A., Punie, Y., & Castaño Muñoz, J.
(2016). Opening up education. A support framework for
higher education institutions. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
Koh, J. H. L. (2017). Designing and integrating reusable
learning objects for meaningful learning: Cases from a
graduate programme. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 33(5), 136-151.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning.
Legitimate peripheral participation. University of
Cambridge Press.
A Framework for an Open Education Supply Chain Network
McDonald, J., & Cater-Steel, A. (Eds.). (2017).
Communities of Practice. Facilitating Social Learning
in Higher Education. Springer Nature.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2019). Conducting
Educational Design Research (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for
Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6),
Nascimbeni, F., Burgos, D., Campbell, L. M., & Tabacco,
A. (2018). Institutional mapping of open educational
practices beyond use of Open Educational Resources.
Distance Education, 39(4), 511-527. https://doi.org/
Norgard, R., Mor, Y., & Bengtsen, S. (2019). Networked
Learning in, for, and with the World. In A. Littlejohn,
J. Jaldemark, E. Vrieling-Teunter, & F. Nijland (Eds.),
Networked Professional Learning. Emerging and
Equitable Discourses for Professional Development
(pp. 71-88). Springer.
OpenKnowledgeFoundation. (no date). Open Definition -
Defining Open in Open Data, Open Content and Open
Knowledge. https://opendefinition.org/od/2.1/en/
Queiroz, M. M., Pereira, S. C. F., Telles, R., & Machado,
M. C. (2019). Industry 4.0 and digital supply chain
capabilities: A framework for understanding
digitalisation challenges and opportunities.
Benchmarking: An International Journal,.
Reynolds Lewis, K. (2019). Preparing for the 2030 Labor
Market. Society For Human Resource Management.
Rios, J. A., Ling, G., Pugh, R., Becker, D., & Bacall, A.
(2020). Identifying Critical 21st-Century Skills for
Workplace Success: A Content Analysis of Job
Advertisements. Educational Researcher, 49(2), 80-89.
Santos-Hermosa, G. (2019). Open Education in Europe:
Overview, integration with Open Science and the
Library role. http://eprints.rclis.org/34423/
Stacey, P. (2018). Starting Anew in the Landscape of Open.
Stacey, P. (2020). Personal communication.
Stacey, P., & Hinchliff Pearson, S. (2017). Made With
Creative Commons. Ctrl+Alt+Delete Books.
Stacey, P., & Wiley, D. (no date). Building a Social
Framework For Sustaining Open Educational
Resources. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Jv
Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteur's Quadrant. Basic Science and
Technological Innovation. Brookings Institution Press.
Stracke, C. (2019). Quality Frameworks and Learning
Design for Open Education. The International Review
of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,
Stracke, C., Downes, S., Conole, G., Burgos, D., &
Nascimbeni, F. (2019). Are MOOCs open educational
resources? A literature review on history, definitions
and typologies of OER and MOOCs. Open Praxis,
van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G.
M., & de Haan, J. (2020). Determinants of 21st-Century
Skills and 21st-Century Digital Skills for Workers: A
Systematic Literature Review. Sage Open, 10(1),
2158244019900176. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244
Weller, M., Jordan, K., DeVries, I., & Rolfe, V. (2018).
Mapping the open education landscape: citation
network analysis of historical open and distance
education research. Open Praxis, 10(2), 109-126.
Wenger-Trayner, B., Wenger-Trayner, E., Cameron, J.,
Eryigit-Madzwamuse, S., & Hart, A. (2019).
Boundaries and Boundary Objects: An Evaluation
Framework for Mixed Methods Research. Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, 13(3), 321-338.
Wenger-Trayner, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2020).
Learning to Make a Difference: Value Creation in
Social Learning Spaces. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/9781108677431
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning,
Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & de Laat, M. (2011). Promoting
and assessing value creation in communities and
networks: a conceptual framework.
Wiley, D. (2017). Iterating Toward Openness: Lessons
Learned on a Personal Journey. In R. S. Jhangiani & R.
Biswas-Diener (Eds.), Open: The Philosophy and
Practices that are Revolutionizing Education and
Science (pp. 195-207). Ubiquity Press. https://doi.org/
WorldEconomicForum. (2016). What are the 21st-century
skills every student needs? https://www.weforum.org/
CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education