Shared publicly  - 
I'm at the #STELLAR network "Big Meeting" today. I contributed a Big Challenge for research in technology enhanced learning - Supporting an Open Culture of Design for TEL,

This Grand Challenge Problem originated as Grand Challenge 2 in the White Paper on Methods and Models of Next Generation TEL, from the Alpine Rendez-Vous workshop by that name, Co-Organised by Daisy Mwanza-Simwami, +Gill Clough and +Agnes Kukulska-Hulme, with +Mike Sharples as provocatour:

comments most welcome!
ARV Grand Challenge Problem 4: Supporting an Open Culture of Design for TEL. The last decade has seen a growing trend towards a shift in the perceived role of educators: from providers of knowledge to...
Joshua Underwood's profile photoRebecca Ferguson's profile photoYishay Mor's profile photoLearning Design Grid's profile photo
I wonder if there are any good examples of open design cultures, even outside of TEL, that we could take inspiration from?
yes, or
but from talking to people behind these initiatives, I think they would agree that the questions of appropriate representations and sustainable mechanisms for knowledge sharing are still unsolved.
Which begs the question: [why] is it working 'elsewhere' and not in TEL?
Howabout #STELLAR running a #MOOC on learning design? Partly as a way of researching appropriate representations, etc.
Nicolas Balacheff commented on this Grand Challenge Problem on the portal:

"Supporting an open culture of design for technology enhanced learning" is one of the Stellar Grand Challenge Problems (GCP n°4). It starts from the recognition of “the lack of appropriate representation of design knowledge in education, and the tools to manipulate such representations” (Yishay Mohr 2011), and that despite decades of development and progress on several aspects, it still miss “a common language” and “[make] this language accessible to the widest possible audience” (ibid). Actually, this is not exactly true. There have been attempts at specifying representations of design knowledge in education, for example the IMS LD for a representation of “learning design knowledge” (Koper 2005). Hence, the GCP should build on the knowledge coming from the success and failures of such attempts: what are they? Actually, the core of this challenge is likely to be on understanding and ensuring the conditions for the accessibility of such a language “to the widest possible audience” (e.g. designers, teachers, researchers and policy makers). To a certain extent it was also the objective of these other attempts (e.g. emphasis on interoperability and independence from pedagogical models). Learning from the past, this GCP could attempt at opening the challenge on issues beyond the vocabulary, which is the challenge of sharing concepts and models in learning design. The language issues may be a symptom of deeper difficulties at a conceptual and theoretical level. Right? Have you examples to share?

and +Christian Voigt responded:
Hi Nicolas, it’s not only the conditions that would ensure accessibility – though a very important question – also what kind of knowledge is actually needed when it comes to a specific design challenge. The degree of generalizability of design knowledge is still an open question, one that needs to be solved before we could aim for ‘common language’. I think design knowledge is pretty much a constantly moving target. I found design patterns a promising direction of investigation as they can handle the fuzziness of the knowledge TEL aims to represent. An early reference to design patterns and their wider application (e.g. as part of an educational framework etc) -; there is also a book on design patterns Yishay and many others contributed to: Peter Goodyear & Simos Retalis, ed., Technology-enhanced learning: Design Patterns and Pattern Languages, Sense Publishers.

To which Nicolas answers:
Knowledge... you say "knowledge", but what is this knowledge like? I agree with you, this is the core question, the one which I target via the reference to conceptual and theoretical difficulties. There is a kind of contradiction in the expression "The degree of generalizability of design knowledge". Knowledge by "construction" has a kind of generality otherwise... May be it is clearer to refer to the domain of validity of a piece of Learning design knowledge. How can we characterize it, validate it?
hi +Rebecca Ferguson - it did indeed! thanks for the reference. I'll edit the post to give proper credit.
Add a comment...