This link has been bookmarked by 50 people . It was first bookmarked on 15 Apr 2007, by Anto.
-
12 Apr 13
-
- Annotation
- A mechanism for the addition to and sharing of comments to a document
-
A Presentation of the PLE Model
-
nment of services and a ‘Personal Learning Toolkit’ (PLT) for accessing them.
-
natio
-
n of an enviro
-
nt as a combi
-
a model of a general Personal Learning Environme
-
Complete service descriptions can be found in Section 2.
-
ersonal learning environment, many users utilize their own toolkits for managing an environment of services.
-
The personal learning environment is the whole picture of services and toolkit.
-
The PLE reference model
-
LMOS and ELGG are two technological initiatives which are closely associated with the aspirations of the model.
-
PLE Scenarios and the validation of the PLE model
-
The PLE intervention situates technology with the learner, not with the institution. I
-
t is the learner who should be responsible for coordinating all the different technologies they have to deal with for their learning. But how is this coordination to be achieved, and does the learner not already coordinate the technologies they are surrounded by?
In the last 10 years, considerable steps have been taken to eliminate barriers of accessibility to computer systems by making them available through a web-browser. However, each of these systems stills entails the learning of particular instruments for their coordination. This instrumental engagement begins with the requirement to remember/coordinate a host of different web addresses, or ways of navigating to particular facilities. Once found, a particular system will present further barriers in terms of the need to know how to negotiate the instruments provided on the web browser, the memory of passwords, etc.
-
-
05 Jul 11
-
09 Jan 11
-
12 Feb 10
Lino Oliveira"The_Personal_Learning_Environment
A report on the JISC CETIS PLE project" -
10 Feb 10
-
21 Jan 10
Ann ForemanIn depth article on PLEs, possibly too much so for most people
-
11 Dec 09
-
30 Nov 09
-
We argue that the PLE (unlike the VLE) is not a system, and it is not possible to characterise it as such
-
-
24 Nov 09
Michael M GrantThis report details the findings of the investigation into Personal Learning Environments conducted by CETIS between March 2005 and July 2006 and commissioned by JISC. In our work we considered the phenomenon of the PLE from a number of different aspects.
-
23 Nov 09
antonella espositoThis report details the findings of the investigation into Personal Learning Environments conducted by CETIS between March 2005 and July 2006 and commissioned by JISC. In our work we considered the phenomenon of the PLE from a number of different aspects.
-
22 Nov 09
-
-
To this end, there are significant issues to be raised concerning the provision of technology by institutions. For
-
For if the current direction of technology has the impact on institutionalised learning that we anticipate, then major reorganisational opportunities present themselves to institutions. Foremost amongst these is the ways in which institutions provide services for learners, and the extent to which institutions should not provide technological services which duplicate those services outside the institution.
-
opportunities for using personal technology are increasing rapidly – and faster than the rate at which institutions can adopt provision for their manageable deployment on centralised computer networks. Thus, learners find that their personal dispositions to use technology are often frustrated by restrictions within the institution. This combined with often unfavourable comparisons between the relative performance speed of personal technology and institutionally maintained technology can create barriers for learners within the very tools that were designed to eliminate barriers.
-
“learning how to use the tools” precedes any learning that might be done with the tools
-
-
Tod Baker"This report details the findings of the investigation into Personal Learning Environments conducted by CETIS between March 2005 and July 2006 and commissioned by JISC. In our work we considered the phenomenon of the PLE from a number of different aspects. Firstly, we considered the PLE from the perspective of its emerging representation in the e-learning discourse."
-
Christiane SHFirstly, we considered the PLE from the perspective of its emerging representation in the e-learning discourse. Secondly, we considered current user behaviour with existing technologies – particularly those technologies which surround the concept of Web2.
-
21 Nov 09
-
16 Nov 09
-
10 Jun 09
-
08 Jun 09
Enzo HernandezIf we return to some of the initial critiques of e-learning, and in particular focus on the nature of ‘shallow learning’, we see some of the steps taken to deepen the learner’s engagement – in particular the
-
05 May 09
-
15 Jan 09
-
The essence of our characterisation of the PLE highlights its change in the locus of control of technology from institution to learner, and therefore this centralised coordination of technology by institutions should be re-examined in the light of the arguments we put forward for the PLE. We examine this question in some depth drawing on a cybernetic characterisation of the current organisation of education, and considering the implications of the intervention of the PLE.
-
The essence of our characterisation of the PLE highlights its change in the locus of control of technology from institution to learner, and therefore this centralised coordination of technology by institutions should be re-examined in the light of the arguments we put forward for the PLE. We examine this question in some depth drawing on a cybernetic characterisation of the current organisation of education, and considering the implications of the intervention of the PLE.
-
teachers seek to exploit and deploy the power of individual services in different contexts.
-
With the e-Framework, emphasis has been placed on institutions to create new technologies out of existing services which meet their individual needs, the PLE envisages learners similarly being able to exploit existing services in the cause of their learning and personal organisation.
-
Many services within the sphere of 'Web2.0' are being used in precisely this manner. Whilst these services may not necessarily be regarded as explicitly 'educational', they present a potential for an effective personal organisation which is at the very least beneficial to institutionalised learning, and in some cases of direct benefit to it. Given this, we seek to uncover the boundaries between this 'effective personal organisation' and 'effective learning', and to consider the enhancements and contributions which educational institutions and coordinating bodies might bring to the body of services which are already in existence, to enhance the direct benefits to learning of such technological coordination.
-
Furthermore, the opportunities for using personal technology are increasing rapidly – and faster than the rate at which institutions can adopt provision for their manageable deployment on centralised computer networks. Thus, learners find that their personal dispositions to use technology are often frustrated by restrictions within the institution. This combined with often unfavourable comparisons between the relative performance speed of personal technology and institutionally maintained technology can create barriers for learners within the very tools that were designed to eliminate barriers.
-
access to powerful personal technology is becoming increasingly widespread. At one point, computers were sited at institutions because issues of cost, scale and resourcing meant that this was the only effective way to provide access to them. This situation has been and is continuing to be transformed. Many learners carry in their pockets devices with performance that exceeds that of mainframe computers of only 20 years ago. Many learners have access to portable computers with even greater performance.
-
users must engage in a constant process of adapting to new technology
-
there is no single definition of a PLE
-
Some, for example, see the PLE as having a significant effect in empowering users of informal learning resources, away from institutions (Attwell, 2006). A related view is to see the PLE as an extension to e-portfolio, helping users to record achievement and set new personal goals (Heibert, 2006; Nicol, 2004). There is also a view that the PLE (and for that matter, other LMS technology) is a superfluous accessory to the technologies of the desktop operating system and the world wide web (Blackall, 2005).
-
As Halbesleben (2003) has pointed out, it is inevitably the student who does the learning.
-
- The decentralisation of the recycling of waste (equipping households with specific waste containers) (Conolly, 2003)
- The decentralisation of tax calculation (the rise of self-assessment) (Stegarescu, 2005)
- The decentralisation of school assessment (the rise of centre-based assessment)
- The decentralisation of welfare provision (privatization of the welfare state)
- The decentralisation of educational finance (student fees)
Decentralisation has been an increasingly popular government strategy, and many have identified this process with the related process of personalisation. As Caldwell argues (CALDWELL), centralised management is increasingly seen as an ineffective method of organisation. This affects many aspects of daily life, as centralised complexity is disseminated amongst the population, who are increasingly asked to organise their own resources, rather than those resources be allocated from the centre.
This process can be seen in a number of areas in current everyday life:
-
Patterns
-
Context Patterns
-
Conversation Patterns
-
Network Patterns
-
Resource Patterns
-
Social Patterns
-
Team Patterns
-
Temporal Patterns
-
Workflow Patterns
-
Activity Patterns
-
PLE Scenarios and the validation of the PLE model
-
A Philosophical Perspective of the PLE
-
-
30 Dec 08
-
29 Dec 08
-
23 Oct 08
Trey Martindale"This report details the findings of the investigation into Personal Learning Environments conducted by CETIS between March 2005 and July 2006 and commissioned by JISC. In our work we considered the phenomenon of the PLE from a number of different aspects
-
05 Aug 08
-
30 Oct 07
-
23 Sep 07
-
21 Aug 07
-
However, a further and more subtle barrier remains – and one which lies at the heart of the PLE philosophy. This is a barrier which relates to the way in which human beings use tools. For in an environment where new computer systems, upgrades and enhancements emerge at a rapid rate to meet the needs of different communities of practice, users must engage in a constant process of adapting to new technology. They must learn how to access these new systems (a problem made easier with the introduction of web-based interfaces), and once they have access, they must learn how to operate the various instruments they are presented with, and they must learn how to effectively deploy the tools they are presented with. And with upgrades and enhancements, these things must often be re-learnt. And all of this “learning how to use the tools” precedes any learning that might be done with the tools.
-
The thematisation of the PLE has largely (to this point) been conducted on weblogs. Key issues have been raised through this medium, which is often tightly connected with the technological development community, and so can often play an important role in determining future patterns of technological development. Amongst these themes, there is general consensus, and some disagreement. Some, for example, see the PLE as having a significant effect in empowering users of informal learning resources, away from institutions (Attwell, 2006). A related view is to see the PLE as an extension to e-portfolio, helping users to record achievement and set new personal goals (Heibert, 2006; Nicol, 2004). There is also a view that the PLE (and for that matter, other LMS te
-
- Chat and messaging tools: iChat, MSN Messenger, AOL Instant Messenger
- Groupware and community tools: Groove, ELGG, Colloquia
- Calendaring, scheduling and time management tools: iCal, Sunbird, TaDaList BaseCamp
- News aggregation tools: NetNewsWire, Shrook
- Weblogging and personal publishing tools: Drupal, Wordpress, Blogger, XJournal, Flock
- Social software: 43Things, Flickr, LiveJournal, del.icio.us, Furl, Technorati
- Authoring and collaboration tools: SubEthaEdit, Writely, WriteBoard, SynchroEdit, OpenOffice, office
- Integration tools: NetVibes, EyeOS, SuprGlu
In line with the need to select a series of Web2.0 tools for the study of current technological practice, a series of tools have been chosen. These include:
-
-
25 May 07
-
01 May 07
-
15 Apr 07
-
20 Mar 07
-
09 Mar 07
Michel BauwensThis report details the findings of the investigation into Personal Learning Environments conducted by CETIS between March 2005 and July 2006
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.