The new student-centred educational paradigm for learning has led to reformulating the classroom environment and the teaching approach, so that students are able to acquire knowledge by themselves. In this sense, open education is associated with collaborative educational practices within learning communities that allow progress towards a culture of exchange and active learning for students. The promotion of open education can be done through different learning strategies, one of which is gamification. In open education, Open Educational Resources (OER) are considered potential sources to bring active learning. Likewise, there are technological enablers of education 4.0 to promote these open educational practices. Through sophisticated active learning strategies, these resources and enablers provide opportunities for students to develop reasoning for complexity, understood as a strategy that globally helps to understand the characteristics of the phenomena of today's society, intertwining and linking its components. These concepts are detailed below.
Active learning
Active learning definition and characteristics
Active learning suggests that students must do more than just listen: they must be actively involved in the learning process. Active learning is usually defined as a student-centered approach to teaching and learning (Lee, 2018). Students must read, write, discuss, and engage in higher-order thinking tasks such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Felder & Brent, 2009). Lebrun (2007) provides an inventory of the characteristics of active pedagogy that includes: the personal nature of learning; the catalytic role of prior knowledge; the motivational factors; the importance of the available resources; the role of context, environment and concrete experience; the high-level skills to be exercised; the research approach and questioning in learning; the conceptual change (awareness, imbalance, reformulation); the need for feedback on one's activities; the interactive and cooperative nature of learning; the link between personal, professional, study and life projects; the importance of construction, and production; and the role of reflection on the learning process. For students to participate in the learning process, they must use the content knowledge, not just acquire it.
Teaching techniques that involve students in the learning process, and strategies promoting active learning refer to instructional activities involving students in doing things and thinking about what they are doing (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). Several strategies or instructional activities promoting active learning have influenced students' attitudes and achievements. For instance, in-class writing is considered a productive way to involve students in doing things and thinking about what they are doing while discussion in class is one of the most common strategies promoting active learning (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). Other popular strategies are problem-solving, collaborative learning, cooperative learning, project-based learning, case study method of instruction, guided design, debates, drama, role-playing and simulation (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Felder & Brent, 2009; Lebrun, 2007; Lee, 2018). In this study, we focus on game-based activities for learning.
Active learning is associated with socio-cultural models, recognizing that knowledge is socially constructed with others. Sampedro et al. (2022) provide an innovative methodology of collaborative and responsible learning in Philosophy of Law, with inverted classroom, problem-based learning, blended learning, collaborative work, gamification and peer assessment, contributing to improving academic results and student satisfaction. Da Silva Garcia et al. (2022) also experimented with multiple active methodologies (virtual learning environments, coding, gamification, problem-based learning, flipped classroom and serious games) in an algorithms subject, finding improvements in results when using the proposed approach. Integrating technologies, such as the technology tool Kahoot, promotes active learning (Gravalos-Gastaminza et al., 2022). In India, strategies to foster group cohesion in online learning environments were developed through crossword puzzles and hybrid medical Pictionary (Hirkani et al., 2022). In this way, collaboration, self-regulation and social construction become vital elements in fostering active learning.
Active learning and game-based learning (GBL)
Active learning is distinguished by fostering hands-on experiences with cognitive, motivational and constructivist strategies, such as game-based learning (GBL). GBL and gamification are emerging innovative methodologies scarcely used in higher education (Greipl et al., 2020). These methodologies use games to acquire educational competencies through directed educational learning, providing a practical experience for students (Almalki, 2022). If digital games hosted in a platform with a solid theoretical-methodological structure are also chosen, they can provide more complete training solutions, contributing to digital literacy through ICT (Tay et al., 2022). The Activity Theory supports these methodologies, which offer a dynamic and dialectical view of the educational process (Noroozi et al., 2020). More specifically, they propose the gradual internalization of learning through tasks within a virtual environment that organizes them to positively guarantee conceptual advances, simultaneously establishing optimal communication, collaboration, and reflection formulas.
In their role as innovation potentiators, universities have transformed teaching by giving students an active role in environments where games are used for learning. The effectiveness of digital game-based learning in students has been studied in comparison with other instructional methods and taking as variables the subject or subjects, the educational level, the game design, and the duration of the intervention (Gris & Bengson, 2021; Wang et al., 2022). Dabbous et al. (2022) evidence learning in experiential pharmacy education, through game-based activities that promoted the better achievement of motivation and learning outcomes. Also, in the field of architecture, Pons-Valladares et al. (2022) applied active strategies in the Architecture 360 project, applying blended learning, challenge-based learning, reflective learning, videos of actual cases, case studies, site visits, interactive simulation, and gamification, finding that active alternatives improved implementation, including didactic materials made available by teachers and dedication outside the classroom. In particular, the use of serious games is a strategy in the field of GBL, primarily used in online teaching; findings from their implementation reflect increased motivation and engagement (Arias-Calderón et al., 2022; Willis & Bryant, 2022). From this perspective, GBL can lead to experiencing real and strategically designed scenarios.
Active learning and gamification
The design of gamification experiences must foster participation with research actions, self-management, collaboration, and creativity. Unlike GBL, which consists of supporting learning using a game with specific rules and objectives, gamification involves learning experiences designed using game mechanics and characteristics found in traditionally non-game environments (Cornellá et al., 2020). For example, using an educational board game to review the key concepts of a subject during class represents a GBL intervention while using a points system or badges (i.e., game elements) to reward students in a class setting for their performance in an exam or their behavior is an example of gamification. In both cases, it has been demonstrated that they are attractive and motivating methodologies, with a positive impact on student learning and feedback (Bawa, 2022; Coleman & Money, 2020). Polyakova and De Ros Cócera (2022) designed gamification-based learning experiences for professional growth in teacher training seminars that included experimentation (workshop, training materials), feedback (questionnaire, discussion), analysis and dissemination of results, resulting (with a questionnaire application), in the construction of new gamified knowledge and increased awareness of active learning techniques. Reverse learning with gamified processes has also been designed to assess standard and structured active learning, finding the latter to have better learning outcomes (Jones & Sturrock, 2022). Other designs with gamification have involved computational thinking learning processes for non-computer science students, where participation in active learning activities was a stronger determinant of learning outcomes than initial knowledge; furthermore, gamification of computational notebooks may serve as a driver of active learning engagement, even more so than initial motivational factors (De Santo et al., 2022). Designing active experiences with gamification can support critical thinking processes and generate new ideas by being aware of the knowledge gains.
Education 4.0
Universities play a relevant role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) developed and adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (United Nations, 2015) and are critical actors in achieving the fourth SDG by carrying out innovative solutions to develop inclusive, equitable, and quality education. To successfully achieve this required transformation, the 2030 Agenda proposes the creation of partnerships and synergies among the international actors involved to accelerate processes and perfect solutions to common problems where technology offers greater possibilities for connection, inclusion, and access (United Nations, 2015). Although none of the SDGs explicitly refer to information and communication technologies, they recognize the need to leverage educational technology approaches to reduce the digital divide and develop knowledge societies (Rodríguez-Abitia et al., 2020). Following the analysis of case studies on implementing the SDGs in higher education institutions internationally, Zhou et al. (2020) emphasized the need to seek strategies based on technological innovation to ensure their integration into academic and professional development. Among this typology of strategies, Lane (2017) and Ahel and Lingenau (2020) point out that a higher education system properly regulated, designed, and supported by technology, open educational resources (OER), and distance education modalities increase access, equity, quality, and relevance of education, consequently leading to the achievement of the SDGs. Concerning this, technological 4.0 enablers contribute to boosting open education.
Education 4.0 refers to leveraging modern infrastructure and emerging technologies to improve higher education pedagogical procedures (Miranda et al., 2021). In other words, Education 4.0 is the integration of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, virtual and augmented reality, into the education system, with the purpose of creating more personalized, collaborative, and technology-enhanced learning experiences, and preparing students for the future workforce (Bonfield et al., 2020). Miranda et al. (2021) propose a classification of Education 4.0 technologies: (1) technology-based solutions that incorporate working principles of technologies and techniques such as Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, Data Science, Virtual Imaging Processing, Data Analytics and Cloud Computing; and (2) tools and platforms that refer to emerging technology-based solutions that combine different technologies for educational and management purposes such as web conference technologies (e.g., ZOOM, Meets, Webex, M-Teams) and asynchronous learning platforms (e.g., Learning Management Systems). Education 4.0 relies on a differentiating element from previous paradigms based on the application of existing information and communication technological tools, including the predominant role of students, the bilateral integration and cooperation among the various agents of educational actions, and the opportunities to build content under the concept of “learning by doing” (Bonfield et al., 2020; Hong, 2020). According to Papert (2020), learning is grounded in contexts, and it is shaped by external tools and supports through mediation. For him, constructionism is a construct that views learning as building knowledge structures through internalization when the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity (Papert, 2020). In this sense, Education 4.0 provides learning environments enabled by technologies where learners are consciously engaged with different interactive supports.
González-Pérez et al. (2022) point out six technological 4.0 enablers that guide educational actors to enhance educational innovation and open education: open technologies, digital pedagogies, adaptive technologies, smart technologies, technological innovation models and disruptive technologies. Fidalgo-Blanco et al. (2022) verified that students had acquired competencies by integrating active hybrid methodology with 4.0 technologies. Integrating these technological enablers in education invites innovative practices in the teaching–learning process such as those based on gamification (Mohd Arif et al., 2020). There have been educational experiences in which the effectiveness of gamification in instilling university students' commitment to education 4.0 has been proven (Ab Rahman et al., 2019; Mohd Arif et al., 2019). At the same time, the limitations of teaching innovation projects in higher education based on gamification under the paradigm of education 4.0 have been pointed out, such as the simplification of the real world by these applications, the difficulties of integration into the didactic system and the offer of greater interactivity without predefined external stimuli (Almeida & Simoes, 2019).
Complex thinking
Complex thinking definition
Complex thinking is a desired competency in university students and future workers to face the challenges of Twenty-first-century workplaces and social spaces. As a construct, it refers to various higher-order thinking skills that provide a person with the tools to confront real problems as an individual or a social agent integratively and holistically (Morin, 1986, 2005). It is impossible to understand complex thinking without considering the concept of complexity. If complexity represents the world as an extensive network formed by fine threads that intertwine and connect its components, then complex thinking is the ability of an individual to apply integrative thinking when solving a problem; it is a strategy or way of thinking that has a globalizing or encompassing intention toward the phenomena but, at the same time, recognizes the specificity of the parts (Morin, 1986). Complex thinking is opposed to disciplinary division; it promotes a transdisciplinary and holistic approach without abandoning the notion of the constituent parts of the whole; and it focuses on establishing relationships and complementarities (Morin, 1994, 2005).
In this study, complex thinking is considered a meta-competency that comprises four higher thinking skills: (1) critical thinking, (2) systemic thinking, (3) scientific thinking, and (4) innovative thinking (Ramirez-Montoya et al., 2021; Vazquez-Parra et al., 2022).
-
Systemic thinking promotes solving problems by considering the elements of the system through the integrative analysis of its parts and the interpretation of data from different interrelated fields of science (Jaaron & Backhouse, 2018; Oliveira et al., 2020).
-
Scientific thinking enhances problem-solving and provides answers to questions about real-world situations by applying objective, valid, and reliable methodologies, analyzing data and using reasoning strategies or cognitive processes, such as inductive and deductive reasoning, problem-solving, and formulating and testing hypotheses (Koerber et al., 2015; Suryansyah et al., 2021; Zimmerman & Croker, 2014).
-
Critical thinking is the process of conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing and evaluating information obtained or generated by observation, experience, reflection, reasoning or communication to assess the soundness of one's and others' reasoning to form one's own judgment of a situation or problem (Sellars et al., 2018; Straková & Cimermanová, 2018).
-
Innovative thinking involves the ability to analyze or interpret the context; apply creativity to design, create or generate solutions; and reflect and evaluate the proposed solution so that it leads to improvements and social progress (Wheeler, 2006; Wisetsat & Nuangchalerm, 2019). See Fig. 1.
Active learning and complex thinking
Active learning strategies can drive complex thinking, where critical thinking is substantial to face uncertainty in changing phenomena. Pinto and Marín (2021) studied the relationship between active learning and the insertion into the labor market of nursing students, identifying security aspects related to acting in the labor market; the active method stimulated proactivity and initiative for learning and helped overcome the difficulties in teamwork and lack of experience in particular specialized fields. Bruna (2013) postulated that student-centered pedagogy could achieve motivation and enhance learning in new students enrolled in courses that require complex thinking and involve different subjects. Similarly, Kellogg and Karlin (2012) provided a holistic student-centered approach to support the attributes of the 2020 Engineer which includes a culture that embraces intellectual diversity, and improved team, problem-solving, and complex thinking skills. In the same vein, Ruiz Loza et al. (2022) provided active learning experiences using ad-hoc technology applications as an essential resource to reinterpret the learning process and shift the focus toward skills development through active learning. Active learning can foster complex thinking to build a sustainable society through developing competencies in leadership, innovation, entrepreneurship, and sustainability awareness (Desai, 2012). In this sense, the reasoning for complexity involves working in uncertain situations that require problem-solving, with active actions that promote shifting the focus and foster dynamic processes.
Open education
The Open Educational Movement emerged in the early 2000s, aiming to share information to reduce the gap between communities with access to information and those with difficulties accessing it. In the United States, OpenCourseware, characterized by freedom of use, made available by universities such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) appeared on the Internet and led to the creation of the open movement. One of its manifestations is the OER, free and open digitalized materials for educators, students, and self-learners to use and reuse in teaching, learning and research (Butcher et al., 2011). The Open Educational Movement is a phenomenon that has been developed and analyzed, mainly in Europe and the United States (Ramirez-Montoya, 2013). Given the importance for Latin American countries to have high-quality materials, courses and resources, several academics and researchers there have focused on studying and following up on experiences in the use, reuse and transfer of knowledge in the open access area (Burgos & Ramírez-Montoya, 2010).
In this study, we define the open educational movement as open access educational activities that enable educational practices including using OER available on the Internet, producing openly licensed materials, disseminating practices in academic, governmental, and institutional, environments, and mobilizing educational practices. In other words, the open educational movement refers to practices, resources, and open-access technologies that involve the production, use, dissemination, and mobilization of training (Ramirez-Montoya, 2020). Open Education and OER are relevant to smart learning environments since they promote accessibility, and flexibility through OER delivery mechanisms. On the one hand, Educational 4.0 technological enablers to promote open education within the framework of UNESCO recommendations include open technologies, digital pedagogies, adaptive technologies, intelligent technologies, technological innovation models, and disruptive technologies (González-Pérez et al., 2022). On the other hand, smart education is considered as a growing emerging field of research that represents the integration of (a) smart systems and environments; (b) smart technologies; (c) state-of-the-art educational programs and tools; (d) innovative pedagogies, teaching strategies and learning methodologies based on advanced technology (Uskov, 2015). A smart learning environment “features the use of innovative technologies and elements that allow greater flexibility, effectiveness, adaptation, engagement, motivation, and feedback for the learner” (Darsham-Singh & Hassan, 2017: 9). In this sense, many OER are either delivered by smart technologies, smart systems and environments or constitute teaching strategies and learning methodologies based on advanced technology. For instance, Ghallabi et al. (2022) proposes an architecture with reusable components to create a personalized learning system that generates courses adapted to learner’s characteristics. The aim of this study is to analyze the final products designed by academics to encourage the open education movement.