First premise: Assessment relies on 3 epistemological orientations:
a) External and Objectivist Assessment: Standardized measures that ensure objectivity and comparability.
b) Internal and Subjective Assessment: Evaluations tailored to individual and collective expectations.
c) Negotiated and Interactionist Assessment: Consensus-based assessments shaped by multiple frameworks (Cardinet as cited by Mottier Lopez et al., 2017).
Second premise: Learning as a dialogue. Think of the socratic dialogue, think of Laurillard’s conversational framework (Laurillard, 2002). Think of the double Latin etymology of education, educare and educere, itself generating a dialogue. Educare is oriented towards the self to build what you are to become and educere is oriented towards the exterior, being led beyond what you are by trainers (Sellenet, 2013).
Third premise: Deep learning vs surface learning. Marton & Saljö came up with 6 conceptions of learning. Learning can be “seen as:
1. A quantitative increase in knowledge.
2. Memorising.
3. The acquisition, for subsequent utilisation, of facts, methods, etc.
4. The abstraction of meaning.
5. An interpretative process aimed at understanding reality.
6. Developing as a person (added subsequently)” (Marton & Saljö, 1984, 1997, p. 55)
Validation of prior learning might be an interesting case study to discuss assessment in open environments because softskills such as creativity and autonomy , former training, professional and associative experience are assessed using competences frameworks but the practice is being debated (Deville, 2023).
Learning in open environments with varying degrees of social interactions, when happening spontaneously, will most probably be assessed informally with the b) or c) assessment type. The credentialing system though relies on the a) type, usually backed on competences framework. Value systems behind the 3 types are very different though. This brings us to the core question of the workshop: To what extent can Openness provide a testimony of the variation between levels of learning and assessment types? (Figure 1)? As a reminder, Openness is framed between two ends of a continuum. The first emphasizes social agency and connection, while the second focuses on shareable, itemised outputs that take the form of objects (Leonelli, 2023).

References
Deville, J. (2023). Utiliser ou contourner les référentiels en Validation des Acquis de l’Expérience à l’université : une pratique incertaine. Formation Emploi, 164. https://doi.org/10.4000/formationemploi.12153
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching. A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. Routledge.
Leonelli, S. (2023). Philosophy of Open Science. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009416368
Marton, F., & Saljö, R. (1984, 1997). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning. Scottish Academic Press. http://www.docs.hss.ed.ac.uk/iad/Learning_teaching/Academic_teaching/Resources/Experience_of_learning/EoLChapter3.pdf
Mottier Lopez, L., Blanc, C., Dechamboux, L., & Tobola Couchepin, C. (2017). Les héritages de Jean Cardinet : regards à partir de trois recherches doctorales sur l'évaluation des apprentissages des élèves en classe. Evaluer. Journal international de recherche en éducation et formation, 3(3), 51-67.
Sellenet, C. (2013). Un voyage découverte. L'école des parents, 600(1), 30-35. https://doi.org/10.3917/epar.600.0030