Personalised Learning ICEM 2013 Workshop


Published on

Personalised learning workshop for ICEM 2013:

Personalisation has emerged as a central feature of recent educational strategies in the UK and abroad. At the heart of this is a vision to empower learners to take more ownership of their learning. While the introduction of digital technologies is not enough to effect this change, embedding the affordances of new technologies is expected to offer new routes for creating personalised learning environments.

Through discussion and group activity this workshop will introduce personalised learning as the organising principle for a sense-making framework for elearning. The concept of ownership will be explored to enrich the language of learning activity and design. In this approach personalised learning can provide a context for assessing the capabilities of elearning. This builds on a series of workshops developed for the Centre for Distance Education, University of London.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Refine topic summaries
  • Customers worked with and interests
  • Personalised Learning ICEM 2013 Workshop

    1. 1. Personalised Learning A Framework for e-Learning James Ballard jameslballard JamesBallard2 @jameslballard
    2. 2. Overview Designing Learning Activity 1: Learning activities Empowering Learning Activity 2: Ownership matrix Personalising Learning Activity 3: Customisation
    3. 3. e-Learning Specialist / System Analyst DfES ICT Test Bed Project UoL E-Portfolio Evaluation JISC/BECTA Transforming Curriculum Delivery CETIS Interoperability: Repository and Portfolio JISC Distributed VLEs HEFCE Online Assessment Management JISC Assessment and Feedback Learning Analytics ULCC Moodle/Mahara About Me
    4. 4. Personalised Learning The challenge
    5. 5. Objectives How do we apply theory to practice ? What does it mean to own a learning activity? How do technologies influence ownership? Can we develop personalisation strategies? Education is the last hold out from the Digital Revolution. - Rupert Murdoch May 24 2011
    6. 6. Ford Any colour as long as it’s black McDonalds Anything you like as long as it’s on the menu Amazon People like you like this Consumer Personalisation
    7. 7. Applying market consumerism to education may compromise the principles of equity on which it is based Values such as self-motivation, self-regulation, and educational progress, are not equally distributed among cultures Disadvantaged learners are least likely to seek help Poorly structured choice may actively reduce the scope for the collective action Contradictions
    8. 8. Activity 1 Introductions and Learning Activity
    9. 9. Activity 1: Creating Learning Activities Introduce yourself Create different learning activities each on separate post-it notes • Fairy/folk tales • Movie adaptions • Computer games • Stories for Learning • Tourism Content • Simulation • Writing • Investigating • Discussing • Re-mixing Tasks
    10. 10. Feedback How did you find the activity? Share your favourite activities How did you choose activities?
    11. 11. Activity 2 Ownership
    12. 12. LEARNER NARRATIVE (TRANSLATION) Translation will accord with learner goals, backgrounds, and values, resulting in varied degrees of mastery but greater degrees of appropriation. TEACHER LED OR SCAFFOLDING (INSCRIPTION) Heavy inscription may be perceived as such and met with resistance with learners demonstrating mastery but rarely displaying appropriation. Empowering Learning WARDEKKE (2010)
    13. 13. Activity 2: Ownership Matrix Learner OwnershipTeacherOwnership Low HighLowHigh Discuss and place your activities on the matrix • Ownership is high where individual’s can express their preferred self • Ownership is low where individual’s must defend their preferred self Guide
    14. 14. Feedback How did you find the activity? Share some examples Were areas of the matrix were problematic? Did the group have a consensus of ownership?
    15. 15. Activity 3 Customisation
    16. 16. COST OF PERSONALISATION In their desire to become customer driven, many companies have resorted to inventing new programs and procedures to meet every customer’s request. But as customers and their needs grow increasingly diverse, such an approach will add unnecessary cost and complexity to operations. Pine & Gilmore (1997) FOUR APPROACHES TO CUSTOMISATION Transparent Collaborative Adaptive Cosmetic Fours Faces of Customisation No change Change NochangeChange Representation Product
    17. 17. Activity 3: Customisation Types Learner OwnershipTeacherOwnership Low HighLowHigh Tag each activity: Colour for customisation types The technology this will use to achieve this • Differentiate activities based on learning styles and needs. Transparent • Standard tools (e.g. target setting) create a unique learning path Adaptive • Presented in different ways but not fundamentally altered. Cosmetic • Learners participate in design developing creativity and reflection Collaborative
    18. 18. Feedback How did you find the activity? Share some examples What is relationship between tool and customisation? Did the group have a consensus of customisation?
    19. 19. Personalised Learning A Framework for e-Learning
    20. 20. Personalised Learning Framework Professional Social National Institutional Personal Portal VLE / LMS Portfolio Personal Learning Plan (PLP) Accreditation
    21. 21. Complexity & Activity Theory Primary artefacts identify tools used. Secondary artefacts are representations of these, either through learner narrative (translation) or teacher-led programs of action or scaffolding (inscription) Tertiary artefacts represent the creative use of secondary artefacts and emerge almost exclusively through translation.
    22. 22. Expanding the Framework Tool Process (Decision Making) Ownership (Customisation) Assessment VLE Rational Transparent Dynamic E-PLP Judgemental Adaptive Formative Accreditation Political Cosmetic Summative E-Portfolio Complex Collaborative Portfolio Ballard and Butler (2011)
    23. 23. Open Discussion Would you use this idea in your own work? Is ownership a useful way to evaluate e-learning? How might you use customisation strategically? Any other comments/question?