PP_Personal Learning Environment, Didactic Architectures_ELearning Europe_08

8/9/2019 PP_Personal Learning Environment, Didactic Architectures_ELearning Europe_08

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pppersonal-learning-environment-didactic-architectureselearning-europe08 1/8

Nº9▪July2008

eLearning Papers

EditorialPersonal learning environmentsUlf-DanielEhlers&RobertoCarneiro

Articles

Understanding the learning spacePhilipBanyard&JeanUnderwoodOn the way towards Personal Learning Environments: Seven crucial aspectsSandraSchaffert&WolfHilzensauerDesigning for Change: Mash-Up Personal Learning Environments

FridolinWild,FelixMödritscher&SteinnSigurdarsonDidactic architectures and organization models: a process of mutualadaptationLauraGonella&EleonoraPantòSelf-Regulated Personalized Learning (SRPL): Developing iClass’spedagogical model AharonAviram,YaelRonen,SmadarSomekh,AmirWiner&ArielSaridFormative Interfaces for Scaffolding Self-Regulated Learning in PLEsMustafaAliTürker&StefanZingel

eLearning Papers

eLearning Papers is a digital publication on eLearning byelearningeuropa.info, a portal created by the EuropeanCommission to promote the use of ICT in education andtraining.Editedby:P.A.U.Education,S.L.E-mail:[email protected]

The texts publishedin this journal,unless otherwise indicated, aresubject to a Creative Commons

Attribution- Noncommercial- NoDerivativeWorks 2.5licence.Theymay becopied, distributedand broadcastprovidedthat theauthorand thee-journal thatpublishesthem, eLearningPapers,arecited.Commercial useand

derivativeworksarenotpermitted.Thefulllicencecanbeconsultedonhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/

mailto:[email protected]

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/

mailto:[email protected]



eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu • ISSN 1887-1542 2

Nº 9 • July 2008 • EN

Editorial: Personal learning environmentsToday’s learningmanagement systems can beperceived as islands – islands in the vast sea oflearningpossibilities theWorldWideWeb offers.Not onlycontent can beobtained, refinedandselected; learnerscanalsoadopt those toolswhichare important fortheirpurposes, create theirown and individual learning portals, tag content or register RSS feeds informing about newsrelevanttothem.Thekeywordweb2.0makesitpossible:Movingawayfromstandardlearningmanagementsystems(“oneforall”technique)toPersonalisedLearningEnvironments(“oneforme”technique)consistingofsnips,bitsandpieces,collectionsoftoolsandserviceswhicharebundledtoindividualand/orsharedlandscapesofknowledge,experiencesandcontacts.ItisashiftfromtheislandparadigmoftheLMStechniquetounderstandingthewebasadoor,aportaltolearningopportunities.While we have already claimed individualisation of education through e-learning in the past,PersonalisedLearningEnvironments(PLE)arenowtrulyofferingit.The eLearning Papers offers in this issue a selection of articles about Personalised LearningEnvironments.How do schools successfully support the personalising of learning through the use of digitaltechnologies?ThisquestionisaddressedinPhilipBanyard'sandJeanUnderwood'sarticle,whichexplores the relationship between digital technologies and current moves to provide a morepersonalisedlearningexperience.Sandra Schaffert and Wolf Hilzensauer present seven crucial aspects of personal learningenvironments derived from the consequences and challenges of PLEs and their rising usage.Theseaspectsmayserveasthebasisforlearners,teachersandeducationalinstitutionsdecisionsfor (or against) the technologicalconcept ofPLE, on a general leveland taking intoaccount itspedagogicalimplications. A critical view on the contemporary models for personalised adaptive learning is offered in thearticle fromFridolinWild,FelixMödritscherand Steinn Sigurdarson. They state that aproposedalternative,mash-uppersonallearningenvironment,canprovidebetteradaptationmechanismsforlearningenvironmentconstructionandmaintenance.ThearticleofLauraGonellaandEleonoraPantòcanhelptounderstandwhether“eLearning2.0”,eLearning based on the tools and approaches typical of web 2.0, can be useful in differentframeworksandorganisations. Theauthorspresent fourdifferentorganizationalmodels and thecorrespondingevolutionofdidacticarchitectures.

TheiClassprojecthasbeendesignedasaninnovativesystemadaptedtotheneedsofindividuals.Two different articlesdescribe the project toour readers: the firstone reviews the developmentprocessofthepedagogicalvisionandmodelduringtheproject;thesecondoneanalyzeshowself-regulatedlearningprocessescanbesupportedwiththehelpofPLEs.Enjoyreadingthesearticles!

Roberto Carneiro, Director, eLearning PapersUlf-Daniel Ehlers, University of Duisburg-Essen;

European Foundation for Quality in E-Learning



Philip Banyard

JeanUnderwood

NottinghamTrentUniversity,U.K.

We identify four keyspaces (personal learningspace, teaching space,school space and livingspace) that have an impacton the educationalexperience of learners. KeywordsDigitalliteracy, Learningspaces, Learning, Pedagogy,

Research,School, TeacherFull texthttp://www.elearningeuropa.info/ files/media/media15970.pdf

Understanding the learning space

Howdoschoolssuccessfullysupportthepersonalisingoflearningthoughtheuseofdigitaltechnologies?Theresearchreportedhereexplorestherelationshipbetweendigitaltechnologiesandcurrentmoves to provide a more personalised learning experience.

Recommendations are made that will encourage a betterunderstandingof thelearningspacesandthebetteruseofdigitaltechnologies.We start by presenting a descriptive model of the relationshipbetween learners, the educational spaces they operate in anddigital technologies. We identify four key spaces (personallearningspace, teaching space, school spaceand living space)that have an impact on the educational experience of learners.Thesespaces are currently notwell understoodand asa resultmuch of the informal and formal learning of children is notacknowledgedandnotassessed.

Wethentestthevalidityofthismodelusingevidencefromseveralnational research projects all of which used a mixed-methoddesign collecting qualitative andquantitative data through focusgroups, interviews, surveys and national data sets of learnerperformance.Thedatareportedherecomesfromthecasestudyreportsandincludesclassroomobservationsalongwithfirsthandcomments from teachers, managers and learners. We considertheimplicationsofthesedataandthismodelforourunderstandingofhowdigitaltechnologiescanbeusedeffectivelyineducation.In the traditional model of education the design of the learning

space was mainly under the control of the institution and theteacher. The physical characteristics of the personal learningspacecanstillbeinfluencedbyteachersandinstitutions,butthedesignofthatspaceandtheusesofthetechnologyareunderthecontrolofthelearners.Tocreateeffectivelearningitisnecessarytounderstandthedifferentspacesinthepersonalisingoflearningandtorespondtotheperceptionsandbehavioursoflearners.


Nº 9 • July 2008 • EN

http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/media15970.pdf








Nº 9 • July 2008 • EN

SandraSchaffert

WolfHilzensauer

SalzburgResearch,Austria

The vast number of tools,supporting collaboration on

the web is an indicator thatPLE and social softwaretools are not only a flash inthe pan, but lead to a newnotion of learning and ameasure for sustainablecompetence development.KeywordsVirtualLearningSystem,LearningManagement

System(LMS),PersonalLearningEnvironment(PLE),SocialSoftware

Full texthttp://www.elearningeuropa.info/ files/media/media15971.pdf

On the way towards Personal LearningEnvironments: Seven crucial aspectsThe practiceof learningand teaching isnot pre-determined, butalwaysrelatedtothetoolsandsystemsusedintheprocess.The

development and rising success of social software applicationssuch as weblogs and wikis and so-called Personal LearningEnvironments (PLE) changes, enables and challenges learningwiththeInternet.PLE, especially in contrast to traditional Learning ManagementSystems (LMS), received significant attention and are aboutchangingtheparadigmoflearningandteaching.Thispapertriestounderpinabetterunderstandingoftheunderlyingconceptsofboth approaches and, on the other hand, to emphasise theconsequences and challenges of PLE and its rising usage forlearning.

Wehaveidentifiedsevenaspectswherethesechangesaremostobviousand/orimportant.Tosumup,learningwithPLEleadstochanges concerning: (1) the role of the learner as active, self-directedcreatorsof content; (2)personalisationwiththesupportand data of community members; (3) learning content as aninfinite “bazaar”; (4) the big role of social involvement; (5) theownership of learner's data; (6) the meaning of self-organisedlearning for the culture of educational institutions andorganisations, and (7) technological aspects of using socialsoftwaretoolsandaggregationofmultiplesources.

Thevastnumberoftools,supportingcollaborationonthewebisanindicatorthatPLEandsocialsoftwaretoolsarenotonlyaflashinthepan,butleadtoanewnotionoflearningandameasureforsustainablecompetencedevelopment.Nevertheless,theexistingapproaches and ideas for PLE need further development andelaboration. With the discussion of the related shifts from LMStowardsPLE and theirchallenges, this papermay serveas thebasisforlearners,teachersandeducationalinstitutionsdecisionsfor (or against) the technological concept of PLE, on a generallevelandtakingintoaccountitspedagogicalimplications.








Nº 9 • July 2008 • EN

Fridolin Wild

FelixMödritscher

SteinnSigurdarson

InstituteforInformationSystemsandNewMedia,ViennaUniversityofEconomicsandBusiness Administration,Austria

The web applicationmash-up solution allowslearners to reuse existing

(web-based) tools plusservices.

KeywordsPersonalisedLearning,Environments,Design,LISL,MUPPLEapproachFull texthttp://www.elearningeuropa.info/

files/media/media15972.pdf

Designing for Change: Mash-Up PersonalLearning EnvironmentsInstitutions for formal education and most work places areequippedtodaywithatleastsomekindoftoolsthatbringtogether

peopleandcontentartefactsinlearningactivitiestosupportthemin constructing and processing information and knowledge. Foralmosthalfa century,scienceandpracticehavebeendiscussingmodelsonhowto bringpersonalisation throughdigitalmeans totheseenvironments.Learning environments and their construction as well asmaintenance makes up the most crucial part of the learningprocess and the desired learningoutcomesand theoriesshouldtake this into account. Instruction itself as the predominantparadigmhastostepdown.

Thelearningenvironmentisan(ifnot‘the’)importantoutcomeofalearningprocess,notjustastagetoperforma ‘learningplay’.Forthese good reasons, we therefore consider instructional designtheoriestobeflawed.In this article we first clarify key concepts and assumptions forpersonalised learning environments. Afterwards, we summariseourcritiqueonthecontemporarymodelsforpersonalisedadaptivelearning. Subsequently, we propose our alternative, i.e. theconceptofamash-uppersonallearningenvironmentthatprovidesadaptationmechanismsforlearningenvironmentconstructionandmaintenance. The web application mash-up solution allows

learnerstoreuseexisting(web-based)toolsplusservices.Our alternative, LISL is a design language model for creating,managing,maintaining,andlearning about learning environmentdesign; it iscomplemented bya proofofconcept, theMUPPLEplatform. We demonstrate this approach with a prototypicalimplementation and a – we think – comprehensible example.Finally, we round up the article with a discussion on possibleextensionsofthisnewmodelandopenproblems.








Nº 9 • July 2008 • EN

Laura Gonella

Eleonora Pantò

CSP-ICTInnovation–KnowledgeCommunitiesDep.,Italy

In a knowledge societywhere time to market is fastand competence domainsare widened and in rapidevolution, organizations areforced to move towards theso called enterprise 2.0model, characterized by anintensive use of blogs, wikis,social bookmarking andRSS.

KeywordsInformallearning,Training,LMS(LearningManagementSystem),Pedagogy,PLE(PersonalLearningEnvironment),eLearning2.0.,didacticarchitectures,onlineeducation,learningplatforms

Full texthttp://www.elearningeuropa.info/ files/media/media15973.pdf

Didactic architectures and organizationmodels: a process of mutual adaptation

Thisarticleaimstoestablishaparallelbetweentheorganizationalmodels and the didactic architectures used by businesses to

manageinternaltraining.Theobjectiveistounderstandwhetherso-called "eLearning 2.0" (eLearning based on the tools andapproaches typical of web 2.0) can be useful in differentframeworksandorganisations.Inthiscontext,thepaperlooksatwhether it ispossible to identifyamutual processofadaptationamong the organizational and trainingmodels we term didacticarchitectures.During the analysis, four different organizational models areintroduced (industrial society, post-industrial society, enterprise1.0 and enterprise 2.0), and the corresponding evolution ofdidacticarchitecturesissuggested(webbasedtraining,eLearning

1.0,onlineeducation,eLearning2.0).In a knowledge society where time to market is fast andcompetence domains are widened and in rapid evolution,organizationsareforcedtomovetowardsthesocalledenterprise2.0model,characterizedbyanintensiveuseofblogs,wikis,socialbookmarkingandRSS.Theseorganizationshaveaflatstructureandarebasedon the principleofautonomy.Thisarticleassertsthatinthesecontexts,trainingandvocationalsystemsbasedonthe same principles - namely autonomy, informal style and anopen approach - can be implemented. In othermore traditionalframeworks, formal eLearning based on LMS platforms will

continuetorepresentaneffectivesolution:aslongasusersdonotbecomefamiliarwiththefunctionalitiesofferedby2.0technologiesandthusbecomeactorsofchange.The document is structured in three parts: The first chapteranalyses four different didactic architectures, highlighting thedifferencesbetweeneLearning1.0andeLearning2.0;thesecondchapter describes organizational models and introduces therelation with the didactic architectures, and the third chapterhighlights the process of mutual adaptation between didacticarchitecturesandorganizationmodels.








Nº 9 • July 2008 • EN

Aharon Aviram

Yael Ronen

Smadar Somekh

Amir Winer

Ariel Sarid

Ben-GurionUniversityintheNegev,Israel

In today’s global economy

and labor market scenario,iClass emphasizes theimportance of personalizedlearning to reach Europe’seducational goals (as statedin the Lisbon’s Objective of2000), as well as for personalwell-being.

KeywordsSRPL,learningplatform,personalisedlearning,reflectivelearnersFull texthttp://www.elearningeuropa.info/ files/media/media15974.pdf

Self-Regulated Personalized Learning(SRPL): Developing iClass’s pedagogicalmodel

Thisarticle reviewsthedevelopmentprocessof thepedagogicalvisionandmodelofiClass,aself-regulatedpersonalizedlearningproject(SRPL)aimedatdevelopinganinnovativesystemadaptedto the needs of individuals. The conceptual methodology thatguided this process is unique in its attempt to structure thedevelopmentforattainingcoherentpedagogicalresults.TheiClassmodelhasbeendevelopedasadirect responseandcorrectivetothechangingneedsofbotheducatorsandstudentsinthispostmodern/digitalera.Intoday’sglobaleconomyandlabormarket scenario, iClass emphasizes the importance ofpersonalized learning to reach Europe’s educational goals (as

statedintheLisbon’sObjectiveof2000),aswellasforpersonalwell-being. AmongthebasicquestionsconfrontingthedevelopmentofiClass,themodelwepresentunderscorestheimportanceof issuessuchasthedeclineofrational,strategicandmindfulthoughtprocesses.Italsoinsistsontheneedfordevelopingself-regulatedreflectivelearnerswho are able tomake informed choices and plan theirlearning process according to their own needs, interests andpreferences.By developing adequate tracking, profiling and matching

capabilities,ICTcanmaterializethedreamofseveralgenerationsof educators and thinkers. In this paper we argue that thedevelopmentofa system geared towards the personalization oflearning must be accompanied by the development of a set ofpedagogicalmethodologies on three levels. However, since therealizationoftheSRPLgoalsinEuropeanschoolsdependstoalargeextentontheusabilityofthepedagogicalmethodologies,themajoreffort for future development based onSRPLwill have tofocusonrefiningandfurtheroperationalizingthembasedon theevaluationofpilotexperimentswithteachersinschools.








Nº 9 • July 2008 • EN

Mustafa AliTürker1

Stefan Zingel2

1IESInformationandEducationTechnologies,Turkey2LaboratoryforMixedRealities,Germany

Without a pedagogical

value-add, PLEs cannot beviewed as educational tools,but perhaps advanced, user-friendly file managementtools. KeywordsPLE,LearningTheories,

Self-RegulatedLearning,VisualInterfaces,ConnectedLearning,InformalLearning, Attitudes,Design,scaffolding,iClass,RIA,platform Full texthttp://www.elearningeuropa.info/ files/media/media15975.pdf

Formative Interfaces for Scaffolding Self-Regulated Learning in PLEs APersonalLearningEnvironment(PLE)isasoftwareapplication(desktop or web-based) which allows students to organise

learning resources and publish individual outcomes. AlthoughPLEs are built for bottom-up personal use, they involvecommunicationandincreasinglysocialtools,promotingnetworkedlearning scenarios. Knowledge management, syndicatingresources,trustworthinessandassessmentontheassemblageofresourcesareactualresearchissuesrelatedtotheimprovementofPLEs.Without a pedagogical value-add, PLEs cannot be viewed aseducational tools, but perhaps advanced, user-friendly filemanagement tools. Therefore, how can such a user-centric toolinfluence the studyprocess so thatmeaningful and constructive

activities are committed more often than rudimentary informallearning?Inotherwords,howcanself-regulationbescaffoldedbyaPLE?Basedonresearchthatpointsouttheroleofscaffoldinginactivatinghigherorderlearningcompetenciesitistheorisedinthispaperthatthesecompetenciescanbeperformedevenbyyoungusers.iClassisanintegratedprojectwhichispartiallyfundedbythe6thFramework Programme for Research and TechnologyDevelopmentoftheEuropeanCommission.Althoughitstartedoffto develop a user-centric intelligent tutoring platform, theeducationalvisionoftheprojectwasupdatedduringthethirdyear

and bringing support for self-regulated personalisation onmainstreamvirtuallearningenvironmentsbecametheobjective.In this paper, formative features of the visual interface of theiClass Web-based RIA will be explained as signifiers of typicalregulatory structures. Semiotic principles underlying eachsignification will be described and the role of visualisation inoperantconditioningandempowermentwillbediscussed.





Documents

PP_Personal Learning Environment, Didactic Architectures_ELearning Europe_08