Book chapter. Networked learning: strategies and tools to open and disrupt educational institutions

Portada del libro Pedagogía Red

Professors Begoña Gros and Cristóbal Suárez have edited a new book that has just been released, Pedagogía red. Una educación para tiempos de internet (Networked pedagogy. An education for the Internet age).

I have been invited to write a chapter for the book on how can we learn in networks or as networks. The easiest way to answer the question would have been to come up with a list of tools… which would have been outdated the day after the book saw the light. Instead, I focused on how “educational institutions” (understood in a very broad way: the textbook, the teacher, the classroom, the library, evaluation, etc.) could be opened, unfolded so that their momentum gathered along the years could be disrupted and actors and tasks profoundly changed.

Besides thanking both Begoña Gros and Cristóbal Suárez for their invitation, I also very heartily have to thank Toni Aguilar, as he was the first one to force me to think in this terms when he invited me to do the talk ICT and education:: evolution of education, revolution in learning, which I have repeatedly given after that — and finally became a book chapter, as now can be seen. Gràcies Toni!

The book is in Spanish, the chapter is called ¿Con qué aprender en red? Estrategias y herramientas para la abertura y disrupción de las instituciones educativas (Networked learning: strategies and tools to open and disrupt educational institutions) and here goes the abstract and the bibliography I used.


Cuando se habla de qué herramientas utilizar para aprender en red, es fácil acabar utilizando la herramienta por la herramienta. A pesar de que nos repetimos a nosotros mismos cual mantra que las herramientas son solamente instrumentos para conseguir unos fines – en este caso de aprendizaje – nos ocurre una y otra vez que ponemos las herramientas en el lugar de los fines.

Ello ocurre incluso en los casos donde nos dotamos de categorizaciones o de verdaderas ontologías para asignar cada herramienta al cajón del que solamente saldrá cuando tengamos claro su papel instrumental.

En este capítulo vamos a evitar caer en la tentación prescindiendo, por completo, de una caja de herramientas. O de una lista. O de una categorización. Todo un reto para lo que, a primera vista, debería ser un despliegue de estrategias y herramientas para el aprendizaje en red.

En su lugar, nos centraremos en tejer la red de aprendizaje. Y lo haremos desmontando, desplegando, abriendo las instituciones que, hasta hoy, siguen protagonizado (y con mucho éxito, no querríamos perder esto de vista) la enseñanza. Y el aprendizaje, a menudo confinado a esas instituciones.

Más que en las herramientas, pues, queremos poner bajo el foco la disrupción que las instituciones educativas están sufriendo y que, en parte, viene de la mano de determinadas estrategias y herramientas. Y es analizando las disrupciones que se están dando en el papel de 10 instituciones educativas que hemos seleccionando que veremos cómo actúan determinadas estrategias y herramientas.


Baumgartner, P. (2004). “The Zen Art of teaching – Communication and Interactions in eEducation”. In Auer, M.E. & Auer, U. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Workshop ICL2004. Villach / Austria 29 September- 1 October 2004. Villach: Kassel University Press.
Baumgartner, P. (2005). “How to choose a Content Management Tool according to a Learning Model”. In, 17 May 2005. Brussels: European Commission.
Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Blaschke, L.M. (2012). “Heutagogy and Lifelong Learning: A Review of Heutagogical Practice and Self-Determined Learning”. In International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13 (1). Edmonton: Athabasca University.
Castañeda, L. & Adell, J. (2013). “La anatomía de los PLEs”. In Castañeda, L. & Adell, J. (Eds.), Entornos Personales de Aprendizaje: claves para el ecosistema educativo en red, Capítulo 1, 11-27. Alcoy: Marfil.
Castells, M. (2000). “Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society”. In British Journal of Sociology, Jan-Mar 2000, 51 (1), 5-24. London: Routledge.
Castells, M. (2004). “Informationalism, Networks, And The Network Society: A Theoretical Blueprint”. In Castells, M. (Ed.), The Network Society: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Chen, L. & Chen, T. (2012). “Use of Twitter for formative evaluation: Reflections on trainer and trainees’ experiences”. In British Journal of Educational Technology, 43 (2). London: Wiley-Blackwell.
D’Antoni, S. (Ed.) (2008). Open Educational Resources: the Way Forward. Paris: UNESCO.
D’Antoni, S. & Savage, C. (Eds.) (2009). Open Educational Resources: Conversations in Cyberspace. Paris: UNESCO.
de Haro, J.J. (2011). “Mapas conceptuales sobre microblogging educativo”. In de Haro, J.J., Educativa. Blog sobre calidad e innovación en educación secundaria, Domingo 3 de abril de 2011. [online]: Juan José de haro.
Domínguez Figaredo, D. & Gil Jaurena, I. (2011). Acreditación de aprendizajes en escenarios formativos abiertos: Aproximación conceptual al modelo de los ‘badges’. XII Congreso Internacional de Teoría de la Educación, 20-22 octubre 2011. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona.
Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M. & Meyer, I. (2010). “Microblogs in Higher Education – A chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning?”. In Computers & Education, 55 (1), 92–100. London: Elsevier.
Hase, S. & Kenyon, C. (2000). “From Andragogy to Heutagogy”. In ultiBASE In-Site, December 2000. Melbourne: RMIT.
Hollands, F.M. & Tirthali, D. (2014). MOOCs: Expectations and Reality. New York: Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education Teachers College, Columbia University.
Huang, W.D. & Nakazawa, K. (2010). “An empirical analysis on how learners interact in wiki in a graduate level online course”. In Interactive Learning Environments, 18 (3), 233-244. London: Routledge.
Junco, R., Heiberger, G. & Loken, E. (2010). “The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades”. In Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27 (2), 119–132. Boston: Blackwell.
Junco, R., Elavsky, C.M. & Heiberger, G. (2012). “Putting twitter to the test: Assessing outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success”. In British Journal of Educational Technology, Articles in Press. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Levine, A., Lamb, B., Groom, J. & Minguillón, J. (2012). Analyzing and supporting interaction in complex scenarios: the case of DS106. Open Education Conference, October 16th, 2012. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
Meishar-Tal, H., Kurtz, G. & Pieterse, E. (2012). “Facebook Groups as LMS: A Case Study”. In International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13 (4). Edmonton: Athabasca University.
Peña-López, I., Córcoles Briongos, C. & Casado Martínez, C. (2006). “El Profesor 2.0: docencia e investigación desde la Red”. In UOC Papers, (3). Barcelona: UOC.
Peña-López, I. (2007). “The personal research portal: web 2.0 driven individual commitment with open access for development”. In Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 3 (1), 35-48. Amsterdam: KM4Dev Community.
Peña-López, I. & Cerrillo i Martínez, A. (2011). “Herramientas 2.0 para el desarrollo de competencias profesionalizadoras”. In Cerrillo i Martínez, A. & Delgado García, A.M. (Coords.), Las TIC al servicio de la docencia del Derecho en el marco del EEES, 89-102. Actas de la II Jornada sobre Docencia del Derecho y Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación, 6 de junio de 2011. Barcelona: Huygens.
Peña-López, I. & Cerrillo i Martínez, A. (2012). “Microblogging en el aula. De la información a la participación”. In Cerrillo i Martínez, A. & Delgado García, A.M. (Coords.), La innovación en la docencia del Derecho a través del uso de las TIC, 143-157. Actas de la III Jornada sobre Docencia del Derecho y Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación, 8 de junio de 2012. Barcelona: Huygens.
Peña-López, I. (2013a). “El PLE de investigación-docencia: el aprendizaje como enseñanza”. In Castañeda, L. & Adell, J. (Eds.), Entornos Personales de Aprendizaje: claves para el ecosistema educativo en red, Capítulo 6, 93-110. Alcoy: Marfil.
Peña-López, I. (2013b). “Heavy switchers in translearning: From formal teaching to ubiquitous learning”. In On the Horizon, 21 (2), 127-137. Lincoln: NCB University Press.
Peña-López, I. (2014). “Innovació social oberta: l’organització política com a plataforma”. In Costa i Fernández, L. & Puntí Brun, M. (Eds.), Comunicació pel canvi social. Reflexions i experiències per una comunicació participativa, emancipadora i transparent, 59-75. Girona: Documenta Universitaria.
Pifarré Turmo, M., Argelagós Castañ, E. & Guijosa, À. (2010). “Using the Affordances of Wiki to Support Collaborative Argumentation in Secondary Science Education”. In Beckett, D.S. (Ed.), Secondary Education in the 21st Century, Chapter 1, 1-56. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc..
Stacey, P. (2014). “Pedagogy of MOOCs”. In International Journal for Innovation and Quality and in Learning, (3), 112-115. Brussels: EFQUEL.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few. London: Abacus.
Tur, G. & Urbina Ramírez, S. (2012). “PLE-based ePortfolios: Towards Empowering Student Teachers’ PLEs through ePortfolio Processes”. In Pedro, L., The PLE Conference 2012 proceedings. 11st-13th July 2012, Aveiro | Melbourne. Aveiro, Melbourne: PLE Conference.
Vivancos Martí, J. (2008). La Competència digital i les TAC. Conferència al Cicle de Conferències. Vilafranca del Penedès: CRP Alt Penedès.
Yousef, A.M.F., Chatti, M.A., Schroeder, U., Wosnitza, M. & Jakobs, H. (2014). “MOOCs – A Review of the State-of-the-Art”. In Zvacek, S., Restivo, M.T., Uhomoibni, J.O. & Helfert, M., CSEDU 2014 – Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, Volume 3, 9-20. Barcelona: SciTePress.
Zook, M.A., Graham, M., Shelton, T. & Gorman, S. (2010). “Volunteered Geographic Information and Crowdsourcing Disaster Relief: A Case Study of the Haitian Earthquake4”. In World Medical & Health Policy, 2 (2), 7-33. Berkeley: Berkeley Electronic Press.

Metadecidim (II). Silvia Luque: The participatory experience of the Municipality Action Plan through the platform

Notes from the Metadecidim workshop, within the participatory programme, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 25-26 November 2016. More notes on this event: metadecidim.

Silvia Luque, Fundació Ferrer i Guardia
The participatory experience of the Municipality Action Plan through the platform

One of the biggest challenges in a hybrid online-offline participatory process is, precisely, how to balance participation in both spaces, virtual and face-to-face.

The oneline platform has been the amplifier of what was going on in the offline arena. It also gathered all the information and contributed to trace the participation footprint.

Of course, the digital platform itself held lots of debates and collected proposals directly online.

Mobile points — ad-hoc kiosks on the streets — provided offline feedback from what was happening online.

The online platform was both a participatory platform and a work platform: everyone worked within the platform. Both citizens and managers used the platform for all the tasks and procedures related to the participatory process.

There was a good balance between online and offline participation, though in the online platform there was slightly more participation. The platform, though, affected the topic: in wellbeing, there were more proposals offline, while in the topic of environment more proposals came online. This sure has to do with the profile of people that participate online or offline. On the other hand, face-to-face events were mostly organized by the city council, who did not organize the same amount of events for each and every topic of the Municipality Action Plan. Participation and proposals, also, not necessarily go hand in hand: one can find topics highly participated that produced relatively few proposals, and lowly participated topics that notwithstanding produced lots of proposals. The topic and the nature of the participation sure explain the differences.

The nature of participation was also diverse: make proposals, comment on the proposals, support others’ proposals, vote proposals, attend events, interact with a mobile point, comments on online debates.

New tools require new literacies and new working logics. And also taking into account the possibility that there is a digital divide. As online and offline behaved differently, the most promising approach is a hybrid one that enables both logics of participation.

Metadecidim (2016)

Metadecidim (I). Robert Bjarnason: Digital tools for the democratic revolution in Iceland and beyond

Notes from the Metadecidim workshop, within the participatory programme, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 25-26 November 2016. More notes on this event: metadecidim.

Robert Bjarnason,
Digital tools for the democratic revolution in Iceland and beyond

Citizens must have a strong voice in policymaking with formal and persistent participation in the political process.

The Citizens Foundation created three open source tools:

  • Your Priorities, an idea and debate platform, on crowdsourcing. Your Priorities is about building trust between citizens and government.
  • Open Active Voting, on budget voting, but very pedagogical on how budgets work. Participatory budgets are not only about having a direct influence on expenditure, but also on knowing how much things cost and what it means to have a budget. After that, trust is built and better decisions are made in collaboration with citizens.
  • Active Citizen: improved participation with artificial intelligence and virtual reality. Artificial intelligence helps in participation with little time spent, helping to overcome bubbles and biases; virtual reality for data visualization and online meetings.

Participation must be fun, informative and educational. Yes, it has to be democratic, and rigorous. But also engaging, something you enjoy doing. Gamifying participation is a good approach for a successful participatory initiative.

Participation tools have to meet people where they are. Tools have to have a “mobile first” design in mind.

But the key for participation to succeed is that it has an impact. Decision-makers do have to listen and take into account what citizens say. If citizens feel they are participating for nothing, they will quickly move away from all other participatory processes.

Participation is also about communication and marketing: people do have to know to be able to participate. It’s not propaganda, but informing the citizen.

Metadecidim (2016)

Working paper. Technopolitics, ICT-based participation in municipalities and the makings of a network of open cities. Drafting the state of the art and the case of decidim.Barcelona

Cover of the workgin paper "Technopolitics, ICT-based participation in municipalities and the makings of a network of open cities. Drafting the state of the art and the case of decidim.Barcelona"

This research is part of the Voice or Chatter? Using Structuration Framework Towards a Theory of ICT Mediated Citizen Engagement research project led by IT for Change and carried on under the Making All Voices Count programme.

The research began in May 2016 and is about to end by January 2017.

The project consists in analysing several cases of ICT mediated citizen engagement in the world, led by governments with the aim to increase participation in policy affairs.

This subproject deals with the case of decidim.Barcelona, an ambitious project by the City Council of Barcelona (Spain) to increase engagement in the design, monitoring and assessment of its strategic plan for 2016-2019.

These specific pages focus on the socio-political environment where this subproject takes place, specifically speaking Barcelona, Catalonia and Spain, for the geographical coordinates, and for the temporal coordinates the beginnings of the XXIst century and most especially the aftermath of the May 15, 2011 Spanish Indignados Movement or 15M – with some needed flashbacks to the restauration of Democracy in 1975-1978.

The working paper Technopolitics, ICT-based participation in municipalities and the makings of a network of open cities. Drafting the state of the art and the case of decidim.Barcelona, thus, aims at explaining how and why such an ICT-based participation project like decidim.Barcelona could take place in Barcelona in the first months 2016, although it will, of course, relate to the project itself every now and then.

Dowloads 13th anniversary

Today is October 21st, and thus it’s anniversary. Its 13th anniversary, to be more precise. Happy anniversary, ICTlogy.

First things first, the quantitative data:

Which deserves the yearly comment.

The most evident thing is the low level of activity in both blogs. Only the bibliographic manager has maintained the usual level.

There are two reasons for that.

The first one is lack of time. Lack of time to share not only finished work (i.e. in my works section or readings (i.e. in the bibliography section, but ideas, ramblings thoughts, projects.

The last three years have been hectic and somewhat erratic both in the direction and ways of my research. I was appointed director of open innovation at Fundació Jaume Bofill three years ago and until last February (when I became fellow director, meaning that I still collaborate with the foundation, but with a much lower dedication). These same two years I was senior researcher at Open Evidence, which I definitely quite also in February 2016.

This last year (since half of 2016 until now) I assumed the direction of three masters programmes:

This has been keeping me really busy. Really. And here comes the second reason for this scarce updates: I moved quite a bit of my time from research to academic management. This is being quite rich and interesting, but one loses the edge on one’s own research plans.

Indeed, I am thankful to Ricard, Maria and Can who somewhat forced me to write.

So, I did read and kept updated in the field, but had no time to do things as I used to, putting out there everything from the first idea to the final paper. I do have to solve this.

There is another thing worth being commented.

In recent years we have been witnessing Twitter being a somewhat substitute to blogging. It is happening in academia a lot. Between a quick tweet or two to share an opinion and taking the time to write a blog post, it is a temptation to go for the former.

It is my believe that Twitter withdrew many from having their own website — not to speak about a blog, or a full repository of their work — as it took too much time, and their online presence was already completed by having an active account on Twitter.

It is glad to see how many scholars are entering the realms of ResearchGate and and using them not only to share their work, but to follow others’.

Indeed, it is just great to see quite a good bunch of non-scholars entering these academic social networking sites to follow the work of some scientists. This is a dream come true. And, I would like to think, yet another nail in the coffin of the dated system of academic publishing.

Academic publishing is more than over. It does not provide a satisfactory answer to the needs it used to cover back when it was created: it is a narrow communication channel, it is expensive, it is slow, it limits peer review to only a couple of people or it mixes up the impact of the journal with the utility of a given paper. And, mind you, the current trend of altmetrics still has to acknowledge that there is no evolution in academic publishing, but a transformation. But this is another debate.

Happy thirteenth anniversary, ICTlogy!

Open Cities Summit (VI). Ideathon workshops takeaways

Notes from the Open Cities Summit, part of the International Open Data Conference 2016, and held in Madrid, Spain, on 5 October 2016. More notes on this event: opencitiessummit and iodc16.

Ideathon workshops takeaways

Open data portals and engagement mechanisms

Who is a user of the open data portal? After identifying the user, a user list sorted by priority should be drawn.

Scholars should explain what open data is and promote it’s use.

Free open data management tools.

Keep data updated and update it and make it known.

Adopting the Open Data Charter

How do tell the quality of open data? How do we know about its usage?

We have a lot of data, but we lack the storytelling, the visuals.

What makes sense for a government, what can work for them, what makes sense for technicians.

We need open data champions.

The charter seems simple but its application is complex. It is a good idea to ‘deconstruct’ it principle by principle, recommendation by recommendation, and go step by step while aiming for the whole.

Create networks of cities that have adopted the charter and see how they did it.

Competitiveness and economic development

We have to identify what is the problem. But not like “unemployment is the problem” but more focused on people. And then, try to come up with an idea that most people will quickly understand because it relies with some other familiar initiative (e.g. “Facebook for dogs”).

We can create the “Tinder for data”, a meta-data portal for open data. It would identify data that could be open and thus create opportunities.

Smart and resilient cities

Bring the users in the design of the projects.

Identify the key role players and establish communication strategies among them.

How do we enable the measurement of vulnerability and how to address it. What defines a resilient city.

Interdisciplinary collaboration and organizational change

Better name: culture change for common understanding.

Start with the challenge.

Creating common context.

Actively create and maintain feedback.

Go across disciplines and across sectors.

Interaction between civil society organizations and between civil society organizations and governments.

Fiscal transparency

Entrepreneurs, SMEs, etc.: they might find hard to find the kind of information that is relevant to them. What are they needs? What are the usual tasks that require data? Awareness on their needs and awareness of the possibilities of open data.

Try and draw a chronological story of data for firms: When starting a business, what is the information that you need? What is the government spending (procurement) in the field? What is the budget and what is the execution of that budget. Do I have benefits for operating in this field? What are the trends in my area?

Making city services accessible

It is very difficult for people to see the safety net, to know what public services can one citizen access.

To build a healthy ecosystem, accessible, interoperable, sustainable, that relates referral providers and social service services.

Standards and interoperability

A good way to understand standards and interoperability is by looking at the path that goes from raw data to indicators, in an aggregation process.

The big issue is that standards apply to very small portions of reality, while reality is much more complex. Open data, smart cities, open government, etc. begin to create their own specific (ad hoc) standards that often overlap.

Who provides the data and how?

Who will reuse the data and how?

4th International Data Conference (2016)