 You can share your flights Barbara and start your session. Yeah, unfortunately, I'm not sure I am able to share them. It should be table. You are. It's only one who can share at the same time. Yeah, I'll stop sharing. Okay, so it should be good. Yes. Now you should be able to see my screen. Yes, please put it full screen then. I'm sorry I'm not going to put it in full screen because else everything is going to be a bit more problematic. So if you don't mind, I'm just keeping it like that. Okay. Good morning. Thank you everybody. I'm very happy to be here. It's my first time attending open education global. But I had the privilege to attend the first French special edition of education, open education global last week. And it was really full of highlights. So I'm really very looking very much looking forward to attending this this week. And today I would like to share some work I'm currently doing and for which I have questions, and I hope to find some answers with you. Because in relationship to the to Robert Farrow's presentation with my colleague Daniel Schneider we have also been working on an open textbook on educational technology methodology, which we have put on and on the some years ago I think it was back in 2014. And of course, it is improving for instance the last things we have added to it is about open research data and how to manage open data. So it's the format of the wiki enables the upgrading and the coming in of the bringing in from everybody. I am working in research methodology. I am from the University of Geneva, the unit of education technology which is part of the faculty of psychology and educational sciences. And yes, I my research topic is open is a research education. So, today, the purpose of the study I am presenting here is about design open education design for research education. And I think everything is open today everything is possible. And the question is, how is it possible to design open education training in research education with a sustainable infrastructure that leads to recognition for learners. In other words, how is it possible for learners to capitalize on the efforts they are bringing in putting in when they are following a training so that they can value this in in the PhD path. The structure of the presentation is quickly this one. So first I will tell you some words about the nature of the study, then come to the European Commission framework to adopt open education define recognition and suggest a design process and then ask you some question. So the nature of the study. It is really conducted in a scholarship of teaching and learning perspective. So, I don't know to what extent you are familiar with this approach, but basically, in the 90s way developed this approach for practitioners for teachers who wanted to improve their practice and who were looking for tools for tools from researchers from scholars to improve it. And before improving it of course it was about understanding it, researching investigating how the practice was conducted to maybe better understand it and then be able to improve it. So what part of practice is examined in this study. Well, as I have already told it's about research education, and more specifically research methodology training so it is really very much linked to the robots presentation. And the issue is that we have noticed that PhD students have needs in terms of methodological training, but that these needs differ really a lot from one student to the other. And we thought that maybe it would be possible with open education design to cater for this individual needs in a timely manner. So the question is how to design open education training. So in this individual manner, and in a manner also that training is recognized in the PhD path so that the learner can value this training. Well, the framework from the European Commission, I am sure you are all familiar with it is basically about 10 dimensions, the six dimension that are in the center are the openable, physical dimensions, pedagogy recognition collaboration research access and contents, and we are working on recognition, and the four peripheral transversal are more transversal dimensions which deal with policy technology quality leadership. And we are very much into recognition. And how is recognition defined in this framework. Well, first of all, it is important to notice that it has two meanings. It is a process of issuing a certificate, which has formal value but it is also a process of acknowledging and accepting credentials issued by a third party institution. There is also a thing about, of course, a set of learning outcomes, which must have been achieved by learner and which is assessed by a competent body against a predictive defined standard. And of course, this is important for the student because it enables him to transition from non formal to formal education or simply to the job market. So the core components that we have extracted are the following one. We have on one side the institutional level and within at the institutional level we have the formal processes to a credit or a knowledge and the competent bodies. And at the learning design level, we have the set of learning outcomes which must be defined. Achievements by the learners and predefined standards according to which the certification is issued. So this is the design process we are suggesting and for which I would like some feedback from you. At the learning design level, we suggest work with two frameworks. The first one is about is from Timmermans and Mayor and is about threshold concept. It is called integrated threshold concept knowledge. This one is very promising, I think, because within research education, threshold concepts have been really studied. There is a vast literature on this and it seems to be, to be, sorry, when teaching with with threshold concepts, it seems to be efficient. And the other framework is the T-PAC by Michelin Kohler. And this one is important because it shows also how the three dimensions, the technological, pedagogical and content dimensions are entangled. And in research education today, I mean, it is obvious that the range of competencies that a doctoral student needs to develop are related to all three domains. So this is for the learning design level and for the institutional level, we suggest to draw back on the Bologna Open Recognition Declaration. And so at the policy level and at the practical level. So how to concretely developed badges on Clemens and colleagues work. So the badging framework would be like that. First, it is about designing training modules. So this is the learning design level. Also at the learning design level, we have to design actually the badge to certify the learning outcomes. So which learning outcomes for which badge. And then at the institution level, and here is where the question really comes is to publish the badge and the training module. So how my question starts here, how to choose technology. Of course, there is this public private in-house developed technology, etc. But how to choose a technology that is compliant with open educational recognition and institutional readiness. By institutional readiness, I speak of my own institution that is going to issue the badge, but also I am speaking of other institutions that potentially receive the student and should certify and acknowledge the badge. And this leads to other questions. Do you use open education recognition? And if yes, how do you use it conceptually and technologically speaking? And more generally speaking, how open, how ready is your institution and your society in terms of open education. For instance, here at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, we have what we call validation des acquis d'expérience, which is taking into account previous experiences when you are enrolling in continuing education training, for instance. And this is a kind of open education recognition, but concretely, very concretely, how is it on your side? How far is open education recognition in your institution? So I would like to open the floor here for questions, and thank you for your attention. Thank you very much, Barbara. I haven't seen any questions yet, but I do have a remark and what we see is, at least in my university, we're working towards another way of recognizing the efforts of teachers and researchers, instead of only looking at their number of publications, but also taking in account what kind of impact they have. And I think that aligns quite nicely with what you're doing here. So also recognizing them for open textbooks for making a MOOC, things like that. And I think that that might be a link to this. So I see a question from Sean, how would engaging in mentorship and other informal training play into what you're working on with batches and other formal recognitions? I am not sure I get the question. Do you mean that I could get some mentorship from other universities, or in one sense, are you thinking about mentorship? I think if I translate the question, it is, do you also get recognition for being a mentor and helping others? No, not yet. Not yet. And not to my knowledge, not also in the direction you were just telling William. And in addition to what I just said, my colleague Ingrid Foss, she's also part of the conference, is actually leading efforts on this topic at TU Delft, so you could contact her via Connect. And then I see another question from Sue Ming. And comments, I appreciate the blending of ITCK and TPAC, and I'm interested in the content aspect and sharing my experience from Ireland. My institution is not ready, but there are some colleagues who are forward-looking and pioneering in practice. Great, looking forward to getting in touch with you, Sue. I see that there are more comments coming in into the chat, so you should look after that. Are there any other questions? So I assume you will share your slides on the Connect platform? Yes, I will. I will share the link for everyone. If there are no other questions, then we can close this session. No other questions? No, I don't see any other questions. Please stop the recording.