A Roadmap for Building Web2.0-based Personal Learning Environments in Educational Settings
Post on 06-May-2015
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTIONDeveloping and utilizing Web2.0-based Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) in educational settings is becoming a promising area of development in e-Learning. While the concept of students control appears to be an essential and defensible aim of PLEs, there is little consensus regarding what this concept means and how students can attain control over their Web2.0-based PLEs. In this paper a conceptual framework for building Web2.0-based PLEs is proposed. The framework consists of four main elements: learning potential of Web2.0 tools and services, project-based teaching approach, students control model, and technology enhanced learning activities. Considering students control as the core part of PLEs, the main intention of the framework is to establish a roadmap for teachers that would help them define appropriate technology enhanced learning activities supporting such processes. The students then can accomplish these learning activities to develop their PLEs and complete their learning projects.
- 1.1Challenge the future A Roadmap for Building Web2.0-based Personal Learning Environments in Educational Settings Ebrahim Rahimi, Jan Van den Berg, Wim Veen
2. 2Challenge the future Main features of PLEs 1- PLE refers to the process that students construct their learning environment by the tools they choose, the communities they start and join, the resources they assemble, and the things they write (Wilson, 2008). 2- PLE is an important output of the students learning process (Drexler, 2010). 3- The conceived goal of PLEs is to transfer the control of learning to students (Attwell, 2007; Downes, 2006). 3. 3Challenge the future Ebrahim Rahimi, Jan Van Den Berg, Wim Veen, PLE 2011, Southampton But, how should I learn and do all of these? The Challenges of PLEs from the students perspective 4. 4Challenge the future The Challenges of PLEs from the Teachers perspective http://www.businesspundit.com/5-steps-to-dealing-with-angry-clients/ How should I teach them according to the PLEs principles and approaches? 5. 5Challenge the future Perceived Problem: Lack of a pedagogy-driven framework/roadmap to support teachers and students to build and utilize their PLEs 6. 6Challenge the future Learning Potential of Web2.0 tools and services Student's control Project-based teaching approach Technology- enhanced learning activities Explores Explores Supports Supports Facilitates Improves Figure 1: A conceptual framework to develop PLEs A Framework to Develop Web2.0-based PLEs 7. 7Challenge the future Students Control Model 8. 8Challenge the future Main dimensions of student's control POWER (Achieving control) SU PPO RT (K eeping control) INDEPENDENCE (Practicing control) Main dimensions of student's control (Garrison and Baynton,1987) Student as socializer Student as decision maker Student as knowledge developer 9. 9Challenge the future iii) Student as socializer to achieve social skills ii) Knowledge developer to acquire relevant cognitive capabilities i) Decision maker to practice control through the personal endeavors to choose and manage web resources for enriching their learning experiences According to the students control model, a student in order to be in control of their learning process should act as: 10. 10Challenge the future The proposed students control model Co-production of knowledge Personal knowledge management Development of personal learning network Student as Knowledge developer Student as Socializer Student as Decision maker POWER SUPPO RT INDEPENDENCE PLE developer 11. 11Challenge the future Web2.0 12. 12Challenge the future Underlying concepts of Web2.0 Social Software Micro-content Openness Folksonomy Sophisticated Interfaces 13. 13Challenge the future Matching Web2.0 concepts and students control model Knowledge producer Connecting the classroom to the world (Openness) Appropriation and Remixing content (Micro Content) Developing the language of community (Folksonomy) Student-centred instruction (Participatory architecture Social software) Socializer Decision Maker Negotiation of control Co-designing of learning activities Co-construction of knowledge (Participatory architecture + Micro-content) Developing a Personal knowledge management strategy Mash ups of content, services and, people(Sophisticat ed interfaces) Extending PLN (Openness+Social software) 14. 14Challenge the future Project-Based Teaching 15. 15Challenge the future Technology- Enhanced Learning Activities 16. 16Challenge the future Locating, finding, bullet pointing, highlighting, bookmarking, social networking, social bookmarking, favorite-ing/local bookmarking, searching, googling Advanced searching, Boolean searching, blog journaling, twittering, categorizing and tagging, commenting, annotating, subscribing Implementing, carrying out, using, executing, running, loading, playing, operating, hacking, uploading, sharing, editing. Integrating, mashing, linking, reverse-engineering, cracking, mind-mapping, validating. Monitoring, blog/vlog commenting, reviewing, posting, moderating, collaborating, networking, reflecting, (alpha & beta) testing Programming, filming, animating, blogging, video blogging, mixing, remixing, wiki-ing, publishing, vodcasting, podcasting, directing/producing, creating or building mash ups Blooms Digital Taxonomy (Churches ,2008) 17. 17Challenge the future Roadmap for Building Web2.0-based PLEs Lower order thinking skills Higher order thinking skills 18. 18Challenge the future Questions, comments, feedback?