a roadmap for building web2.0-based personal learning environments in educational settings
DESCRIPTION
Developing 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 student’s 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, student’s control model, and technology enhanced learning activities. Considering student’s 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.TRANSCRIPT
1Challenge the future
A Roadmap for Building Web2.0-based Personal Learning Environments in
Educational Settings
Ebrahim Rahimi, Jan Van den Berg, Wim Veen
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).
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 student’s perspective
4Challenge the future
The Challenges of PLEs from the Teacher’s perspective
http://www.businesspundit.com/5-steps-to-dealing-with-angry-clients/
How should I teach them according to the PLE’s principles and approaches?
5Challenge the future
Perceived Problem:
Lack of a pedagogy-driven framework/roadmap to support
teachers and students to build and utilize their PLEs
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
FacilitatesImproves
Figure 1: A conceptual framework to develop PLEs
A Framework to Develop Web2.0-based PLEs
7Challenge the future
Student’s Control Model
8Challenge the future
Main dimensions of student's control
POWER (Achieving control)
SUPPORT (Kee
ping c
ontro
l)
INDEPENDENCE (Practicing control)
Main dimensions of student's control (Garrison and Baynton,1987)
Student as socializer
Student as decision
maker
Student as knowledge developer
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 student’s control model, a student in order to be in control of their learning process should act as:
10Challenge the future
The proposed student’s 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 IND
EPE
ND
EN
CE
PLE developer
11Challenge the future
Web2.0
12Challenge the future
Underlying concepts of Web2.0
• Social Software
• Micro-content
• Openness
• Folksonomy
• Sophisticated Interfaces
13Challenge the future
Matching Web2.0 concepts and student’s 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(Sophisticated interfaces)
Extending PLN
(Openness+Soci
al software)
14Challenge the future
Project-Based Teaching
15Challenge the future
Technology-Enhanced Learning Activities
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
Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy (Churches ,2008)
17Challenge the future
Roadmap for Building Web2.0-based PLEs
Lower order thinking skills
Higher order thinking skills
18Challenge the future
Questions, comments, feedback?