Science 2.0: Supporting a Doctoral Community of Practice in Technology Enhanc...
Web 2.0 Personal Learning Environments (PLE 2.0): From dreams to reality?
1. Web 2.0 Personal Learning
Environments (PLE 2.0):
From dreams to reality?
Denis Gillet • École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)
ED-MEDIA Graduate Student Program • Toronto, Canada
Thursday July 1, 2010 • 2:45-3:45
2. Abstract
• Talk
• Current challenges and research questions
related to the use of social media as personal
learning environments (PLE)
• Self-Directed Learning (SDL) and Human
Computer Interaction (HCI) issues
• Demo of a PLE prototype
• Workshop
• Define your dream learning widget
• Design your own personal learning
environment
2
4. Claims for Higher Education
• Students learn everywhere but in classrooms;
however, they create, shape and populate
alternative spaces for learning: Personal
learning environments exist !
• Students use technology and social media for
everything but learning; however, they interact
and learn with knowledgeable peers: Informal
learning and social learning exist !
• Students dislike Learning Management Systems
(LMS); however, they exploit all available learning
resources and opportunities (inside and outside
Institutions): Self-directed learning exists !
4
5. Historical Perspectives
• Learning 0.0: One Ape for everyone !
• Interaction in
chosen contexts
and stimulating
environments
• Learning relies on Aspiration, Affect and Artifacts
5
6. Historical Perspectives
• Learning 2.0: One App for everything !
• Interaction in
chosen contexts
and stimulating
environments
• Learning relies on Aspiration, Affect and Artifacts
6
7. Current e-Learning Trends
• Focus on personal learning environments,
informal, social, and self-directed learning
• Educational institutions start to recognize,
exploit and support students in these important
but unexplored and unexploited frameworks
• Trends towards personal learning environments
and self-directed learning using social media
• When social media are exploited with a prior
intention of learning or a post recognition of
learning, they are referred to as Web 2.0 Personal
Learning Environments (PLE 2.0)
7
8. Personal Learning Environment
Implemented in Liferay
Formalizing Informal Learning and/or Informalizing Formal Learning
Blurred Separation between Personal and Personal Learning Spaces
8
10. ROLE Objectives
• From unintelligent mash-up of various legacy
technology to intelligent user-driven aggregation
of openly-available resources, services & people
• ROLE Vision: Empower the learners to build their
own responsive personal learning environments
• “R” stands for Responsive
• Personalization according to own explicit or implicit
preferences, competencies and learning objectives
• Personalization relies on just-in-time user-driven
context definition, recommendation and aggregation
• http://www.role-project.eu
10
11. Psycho-Pedagogical Model
learner input regarding
goals, preferences, …
Learner objectives. preferences and
profile (if any) are defined or revised
evaluation and
creating PLE
self-evaluation
plan
learner reflects and reacts learner finds and selects
on strategies, achievements, ➀ learning resources + people
and usefulness Reflect learn
recommendations
feedback from peers or tutors
(from different sources)
learner works on selected
learning resources + people
assessment and attaining skills using different
self-assessment learning events (8LEM) recommendations
be aware of monitoring
learner should understand and ROLE infrastructure should
control own learning process provide adaptive guidance
Explicit or Implicit stages
➀ Zimmerman & Tsikalas (2005) + iClass Self-Directed Learning Model
11
13. Personal Learning Environment
• The notion of Personal Learning Environment
(PLE) as conceptualized by Attwell (2006, 2007)
refers to a set of the different applications,
services and various other types of learning
resources gathered from different contexts
• PLE is constructed by an individual and used
in everyday life for learning (may not be unique)
• PLE construction is part of the learning process
• Web 2.0 or Social Web predominance in PLEs
allows people to connect, collaborate, create
and share (personal but not lonesome)
13
14. Personal Learning Environment
Requirement Analysis: Conversation between 26
experts in personal learning (pedagogy) and learning
environments (technology)
Pedagogy PLE Cloud Technology PLE Cloud
14
15. Personal Learning Environment
Chosen from a
all-you-can-eat
(learn) buffet
Content coming
from different
providers The trust
with is in the
different brand
standalone
packaging
… following diet
Personalized according to recommendation
own preferences and context by the cook or peers
15
17. Web 2.0 Interaction Model
3A model describes interaction in social media,
resulting from PALETTE European project dedicated to
learning in Communities of practice and developed in ROLE
Any of the 3A Groups
pillars can be Topics
CRUD: Tasks SALT:
selected as
Share,
context Creating, Activities Assess,
Reading,
Asset, task, Updating Spaces Objectives Link,
or community and Deleting Tag
management Events
system People Relations Wiki pages
Actions
Integrated Actors Documents
awareness,
Services Assets
notification and
Apps Context Feeds
Agents
recommendation Discussion threads
Smart Devices
features
17
18. Graaasp Social Software
Graaasp is a contextual aggregator
with recommendation of entities
(people, spaces, assets and tools)
Graaasp encourages aggregation
of 3A entities by design
Contextual relation-based
recommendation
18
21. Recommendation
• Search and recommendation driven and
customized by learners for
• rated resources (content)
• trusty people (reputation)
• validated interoperable services (widgets)
• relevant competences (gaps & objectives)
• sensible learning activities and paths (processes)
• PLE configurations (contexts & mashups)
• PLE containers (Netvibes, iGoogle, Google Wave, …)
• available in various repositories and social media
22. Evaluation Challenges
• Evaluation is a research issue (control experiments
for uncontrolled learning and personalized spaces)
• Personalization makes all PLE different and difficult to
compare in terms of features and possible outcome
• Ethnographical approaches derived from KM useful
• Elicitation of informal and self-directed practices
• Social, pedagogical and technological requirement
analysis
• Digital literacy is an issue, especially for PLE 2.0
• Adoption (practices and environments), darwinism
23. Final Thoughts
• PLE 2.0 are about
• aggregation of and interaction with learning resources,
services and people
• empowering learners, facilitating interaction, providing
room for emotions, and supporting knowledge and
competency management
• agile contextual learning and agile construction
of the learning spaces and instruments
• Search, recommendation and trust and are key PLE
issues to be tackled as complement or substitutes of
institutional and corporate role and reputation
• Are self-directed learning and PLEs for all ?
• How to connect PLE 2.0 with the physical spaces ?
25. Workshop
➊ Do you use something you could identify as a
PLE (relying or not on social media) ?
Yes, relying on Yes, relying on
No
social media something else
# # #
which social
Why? what else?
media?
➋ What social media or aggregator would you use to
build your own PLE ?
Your answers are welcome on paper or in an email to denis.gillet@epfl.ch
25
26. Workshop
➌ What gadget(s) do you dream of being integrated
for learning purposes in your PLE ?
➍ Is the graphical integration of many gadgets
useful ? Any prefer number of simultaneous
gadgets (widgets or apps) ?
➎ Do you wish to keep a separation in your
platforms for social and educational interaction
with resources, services and people ?
➏ Do you or would you use different digital identities
for different interaction purposes ?
➐ Would you accept to let a system track you actions
to provide you with better recommendation ?
26
27. Workshop
ROLE will launch soon a
competition for the best
learning gadget
Stay tuned and start to
develop your dream gadget
27
