1 / 21

Personal Learning Environments Shifting the Locus of Control

Personal Learning Environments Shifting the Locus of Control. Oleg Liber CETIS, University of Bolton. Changing…. Technologies Students Pedagogies Environment Institutions State education system Global education. Before VLEs. Technology Web, ftp, gopher, email, newsgroups

nissim-lambert
Download Presentation

Personal Learning Environments Shifting the Locus of Control

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Personal Learning EnvironmentsShifting the Locus of Control Oleg Liber CETIS, University of Bolton

  2. Changing… • Technologies • Students • Pedagogies • Environment • Institutions • State education system • Global education

  3. Before VLEs • Technology • Web, ftp, gopher, email, newsgroups • Little interoperation • No learner management • Enthusiast driven • Students • Mainly young, homogenous • Mainly on campus • Pedagogy • Formal, face to face delivery

  4. Age of the VLE • Technology • Content delivery • Discussion groups • MCQ • Limited learning management • Invented by enthusiasts • Students • More part-time • Access • Widening participation • Pedagogy • More distance learning • Greater support requirements

  5. VLE approaches • Technical approaches • Website plus database (BB, WebCT …) • Rich client (Colloquia) • Organisational issues • University as ISP • “Big System” management model • Constrain diversity

  6. Why VLEs have succeeded • Not disruptive innovation • Easily adopted to support existing classroom/course paradigm • Widely incorporated • Which benefits proven? • Pedagogic • Cost • Access

  7. Post VLE • New developments since 1996 • Mobile phones, SMS, camera phone • Digital photography, Flickr • Blogs, RSS • MP3 players, media players, PDAs • iTunes, podcasting • Pen drives, smart drives, SD cards… • Instant messaging • Internet gaming • Bandwidth!

  8. Institutional concerns • Traditionally institutions provide technology • Classrooms, labs, library etc. • Since 1990s institutions are ISPs • Email address, file store, homepages, records • Assume students have no technology • Also eportfolio hosting, VLE/LMS, content, services • Now constraining technological use by students • IM, P2P, Blogs, MP3, mobile phones, PDA • Staff and student skills training • Huge variety • But modern students need to use multiple systems

  9. Technology Moodle Eportfolio system Course catalogue Content Authentication and authorisation College A Knowledge Teaching University B Knowledge Teaching Technology WebCT Eportfolio system Course catalogue Content Authentication and authorisation University C Knowledge Teaching Technology Fronter Eportfolio system Course catalogue Content Authentication and authorisation

  10. Issues for eLearning • Technological: • adaptable to changing technologies • Interoperability • SOA • Institutional • Changing nature of service provision • Pedagogic • Ownership and creative use of technical system by teachers and students • Shifting locus of control

  11. Service Service College A Knowledge Teaching Resources Service Technology PLE Eportfolio Content Relationship Management Tools University B Knowledge Teaching Resources University C Knowledge Teaching Resources Service Service Service

  12. Post VLE – Personal Learning Environments • Students • Mobile, learn anywhere • Technologically aware, capable • Multiple courses, formal/informal • Technology • Personal • Interoperable, standards based • Extensible, service-oriented • Institutions • Service based • Technology requirements • Flexible courses • Learner centred

  13. Before… • Course built at institution • Consumed by learner • Learners are managed VLEs provide no management tools for learners • Learners “fit” into course Can only choose elective modules • Learners belong to institution One institution at a time is typical Do customers shop only at one shop?

  14. …After • Course aggregated by learner • From several sources • Content, peers, support, teaching • Elements provided by institution • Content, peers, support, teaching, certification • Learners aggregate/manage elements • Courses are customised to learner • Learners are free agents • “… shop at several shops…”

  15. PLE implications • Student have own email address, PLE, e-portfolio • Commercial ISP provides core services • Also web-services (instrumentation), resources • State provides Services, resources, learning space, information • University provides Student support Specialised web services Content, teaching

  16. JISC funded Reference Model project • DfES • “A collaborative approach to personalised learning activities” (DfES e- Strategy summary p.3) • http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/e-strategy/docs/e-strategysummary.pdf • Philosophy of eLearning and PLEs Why technology? What “caused” VLEs? What “caused” eLearning? • Use cases – scenarios for use of PLE What will the future be like? • Reference model – defining the scope of PLEs • Prototypes Examples of possible PLEs

  17. AOLInstantMessenger iChat MSNMessenger Colloquia Groove ELGG Outlook Chandler AppleMail Eudora Thunderbird iCal Sunbird Shrook NetNewsWire Blogger Drupal Wordpress XJournal Google Amazon 43Things Flickr Furl Technorati del.icio.us http://www.writeboard.com/ SynchroEdit Flock WiredReach NetVibes eyeOS Writely SuprGlu BaseCamp TaDaList

  18. Prototypes • Desktop application: • Resources: create, get, post and organise • Bookmarks, feeds, other sources • People: find, meet, collaborate, communicate, organise • Activities: receive, design, create, participate • Instrumentation: pluggable web-services • Portal application: • Mimics desktop prototype

  19. Importance of standards Resources: RSS, Atom, Content packages, SCORM…. People: FOAF, LIP, ePortfolio… Activities: Learning Design… Instrumentation: XMPP, WSDL, SOAP…

  20. Thanks for listening! • http://www.cetis.ac.uk/members/ple

More Related