Advertisement

An Empirical Study on Implementing Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) in Schools

  • Yuwei Lin
  • Enrico Zini
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 223)

Abstract

This empirical paper shows how free/libre open source software (FLOSS) contributes to mutual and collaborative learning in an educational environment. However, unlike proprietary software, FLOSS allows extensive customisation of software and supports the needs of local users better. In this paper, we observes how implementing FLOSS in an Italian high school challenges the conventional relationship between end users themselves (e.g. teachers and students) and that between users and developers. The findings will shed some light on the social aspects of FLOSS-based computerization -- including the roles of FLOSS in social and organizational change in educational environments and the ways that the social organization of FLOSS are influenced by social forces and social practices.

Keywords

free/libre open source software (FLOSS) FLOSS inplementation in schools collaborative learning mutual learning OpenOffice.org blog 

References

  1. A. Bruckman, Co-evolution of technological design and pedagogy in an online learning community. In Designing Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning edited by Sasha Barab, Rob Kling, and James Gray. Cambridge University Press (2003).Google Scholar
  2. C. DiBona, S. Ockman, and M. Stone, (Eds.) Open Sources: Voicesfrom the Open Source Revolution (O’Reilly UK, 1999).Google Scholar
  3. M. Dougiamas, Developing tools to foster online educational dialogue. In K. Martin, N. Stanley and N. Davison (Eds), Teaching in the Disciplines/Learning in Context, 119–123. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, The University of Western Australia, February 1999. Perth: UWA. http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1999/dougiamas.html (1999).Google Scholar
  4. M. Dougiamas, and P. C. Taylor, Moodle: Using Learning Communities to Create an Open Source Course Management System. Proceedings of the EDMEDIA 2003 Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii (2003).Google Scholar
  5. J. Fleck, Configurations: crystallizing contingency, International Journal of Human Factors in Manufacturing, 3(1), 15–36 (1993).Google Scholar
  6. J. Fleck, Learning by trying: the implementation of configurational technology’, Research Policy, 23, 637–652 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. R. Fox, What are the shortcomings inherent in the non-problematic perception of new technologies? In Black, B. and Stanley, N. (Eds), Teaching and Learning in Changing Times, 96–101, Proceedings of the 7th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, The University of Western Australia, February 1998. Perth: UWA (1998).Google Scholar
  8. M-L Gomez, I. Bouty, and C. Drucker-Godard, Developing knowing in practice: behind the scenes of haute cuisine. In Knowing in organizations: A practice-based approach edited by Davide Nicolini, Silvia Gherardi and Dvora Yanow (London: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.,2003).Google Scholar
  9. C. Hine, Ideas of audience in World Wide Web design: the meaning of a mouse click. Information, Communication and Society 4(2): 182–198 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. C. Hine, Cyberscience: and social boundaries: the implications of laboratory talk on the Internet. Sociological Research Online. 7(2) http://www.socresonline.org.uk/7/2/hine.html (2002).Google Scholar
  11. M. H. Huysman, and D. de Wit, Knowledge sharing in practice (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002).Google Scholar
  12. J. Lave, and E. Wenger E. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. D. R. Millen and M. J. Muller, Computer-Supported Communities of Practice, paper presented at the 2nd ECSCW Workshop on Community Knowledge, 16–20 September 2001, Bonn, Germany (2001).Google Scholar
  14. E. J. Pearson and A. J. Koppi, A WebCT Course on Making Accessible Online Courses, WebCT Asia-Pacific Conference, Melbourne, Australia, March 2002 (2002).Google Scholar
  15. B. Perens, The open source definition. In Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone (Eds). (O’Reilly UK, 1999).Google Scholar
  16. C. Shirky, Situated software, firstly published March 30, 2004 on the ‘Networks, Economics, and Culture’ mailing list. Available online at http://www.shirky.com/writings/situated_software.html (2004).Google Scholar
  17. S. L. Star, The structure of ill-structured solutions: boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In Gasser, L. & Huhns, M. (eds.) Distributed artiJicial intelligence, vol. 2 (London: Pitman, 1989), pp. 37–54.Google Scholar
  18. A. Strauss, Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (Cambridge University Press, 1987).Google Scholar
  19. R. K. Yin, Case Study Research, Design and Methods, 3rd ed. (Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 2002).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuwei Lin
    • 1
  • Enrico Zini
    • 1
  1. 1.National Centre for E-Social ScienceUniversity of ManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations