PLE_BCN 2010 (Session 15 – PLEs and Institutions)


Published on

Towards an eLearning 2.0 provisioning strategy for universities

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

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

No notes for slide

PLE_BCN 2010 (Session 15 – PLEs and Institutions)

  1. 1. Towards an eLearning 2.0 provisioning strategy for universities Oskar Casquero ( University of the Basque Country PLE conference 2010 Barcelona, July 08
  2. 2. Nothing will replace VLEs, but…   We need sth else that is able to:   Favour mobility   Recognize non-formal learning   Consider the autonomy of the learner   Exploit social nature of learning   Support life-long learning   Strengthen links with society   Educational institutions should be aware of the benefits they can obtain by embracing eLearning 2.0
  3. 3. eLearning 2.0: Web 2.0 patterns adapted to learning needs   eLearning 2.0 for “learner-centered proactive process”   Patterns:   Web 2.0: distributed model for sw and data allocation   eLearning 2.0: access sw and data inside and outside institution   Web 2.0: community-centred model for data processing   eLearning 2.0: collective intelligence from personal networks   Web 2.0: user-centred model for action management   eLearning 2.0: give learners the ownership of technology
  4. 4. PLEs for eLearning 2.0   Our vision of PLE   open, flexible, distributed and learner-centred environment   it embeds every service, resource, evidence and person involved in the digital part of the learning process   Problems when introducing “naked” PLEs within institutions   no notion of classroom   difficult to discover and access web services   difficult to track learner’s activity
  5. 5. Why iPLE (institutionally “powered” PLE) ?   Because institutions should guide a part of the learning process   Because institutions create an important social capital that must be combined with personal networks of its users   Because institutions should gather individual knowledge and return them with added value to its members and to society   Because it extends the relation between graduates and institutions   Because many learners can not build their PLE from scratch   … and because it is ethically secure !   data and the use of the data are declared on public agencies for data protection   autonomy and will of university members is considered
  6. 6. eLearning 2.0 provisioning strategy
  7. 7. Step 1: expose institutional services within iWidgets   Pull live content or functionality that university offers * iEcosystem is the cloud of web services offered by the university * own-configured PLE can be a web site, a starting page, a widget- enabled email account like Gmail
  8. 8. Step 2: merge both personal and institutional spheres by providing iPLEs   pre-configured PLEs by the institution   minimum base which learners can start working with   they are provided but they can be customized   gives access to every service and data that is relevant for the user’s learning process
  9. 9. Step 3: gain wider visibility regarding society using iRepositories   Institutional accounts in the most suitable repositories * We consider three kinds of Content Management Systems from the institution (iCMS): VLEs, Blogs and Wikis
  10. 10. Step 4: retain learning contents and evidences (Learn-Streaming)
  11. 11. Step 5: create a collective intelligence iPLE   PLE   iPLE   PLE   PLE   PLE   iPLE   iPLE   PLE   iPLE   iPLE   iPLE   iPLE   PLE   iPLE   PLE   PLE   iPLE   PLE   iPLE   iPLE   iPLE   PLE   PLN (Personal Learning Network) = iSN (institutional SN) + uSN (user-defined SN)
  12. 12. Step 5: create a collective intelligence   The grid of iPLEs is a iPLE Network   learning units cooperating to share learning resources   Social Network Analysis over iPLE Network   good chance to discover interesting social findings (e.g: relations, positions, temporal patterns)   improve their awareness of learning context structure (e.g: social capital discovery, information disclosure)   iPLE Network as a “Net Mirror”   give feedback and recommendations
  13. 13. iPLE case study
  14. 14. iPLE case study: settings   2 distance learning undergraduate courses   more than 140 students (from 9 universities)   workgroups of 5/6 members   problem-solving activities based on the usage of digital resources   within each subject:   Control group: half of the students in Moodle   Experimental group: the other half in iPLE   iGoogle: we gave students a tab with widgets for the subject   FriendFeed: we dumped the iSN of the group on it
  15. 15. iPLE case study: settings   SNA over iPLE Network   objective: take into account the structure of the social network of the course when creating the workgroups   process:   data collection during the first individual activities   customized data processing to find affinities   result: automatic creation of workgroups in the iPLE environment, as well as the suggestion of the work topics   Moodle groups were created randomly
  16. 16. Future Work   The iPLE network architecture for the presented strategy is described in:   Casquero, O., J. Portillo, R. Ovelar, M. Benito, and J. Romo. Forthcoming. iPLE Network: an integrated eLearning 2.0 strategy from University's perspective. Interactive Learning Environments 18, no. 3.   In the short term: work on the dataset from iPLE case study   H1: interventions that take into account the structure of social networks are more efficient than those do not   H2: giving feedback positively affects learning outcomes   In the mid term: apply SNA to datasets obtained from a prototype of the iPLE network. This work will be developed within projects:   UPV/EHU project: Social Networks for enhancing lifelong learning (until 2012)   MICINN project: “Mining, Data Analysis and Visualization based on Social models in E-Learning”   In the long term: longitudinal analysis…