Future VLE - Scott Wilson One of the most influential models for a Personal Learning Environment was called a &quot;Future VLE&quot; model, and was published by Scott Wilson. This model predated the PLE project, and has been incorporated into aspects of the reference model and prototypes. As a high-level visualization, this model is useful for creating a sense of the relative position of the model elements (agents, services, tools), while at the same time the level of detail is quite superficial, enabling a range of interpretations.
Web 2.0 Meme Map - Tim O'Reilly Another useful model is the O'Reilly &quot;Web 2.0 Meme Map&quot;; while not specifically about learning, this model identifies a number of core patterns that identify the current shift in web technologies towards personal, decentralised collaborative technology. Patterns such as &quot;Granular Addressability&quot; and &quot;User behaviour not predetermined&quot; are a useful conceptual reference model, and could be used alongside the more specific patterns for Personal Learning Toolkits included in the PLE reference model. O
Digital Lifestyle Aggregator - Marc Canter This is another model that is wider than learning, but also has useful parallels to the PLE. This model by Marc Canter shows the integration of personal publishing with social networks.
Weblog and Aggregation Organisational Online Communication Model - James Farmer James Farmer first presented this model at the Blogtalk Down Under conference in 2005, and presents a model of centred conversation within organisations using the weblog as an organisational device through aggregation. The central architectural concept is that each user owns both a weblog and an aggregator, and this aspect of the personal toolkit is also present in the PLE Reference Model in the form of Conduits and Feeds - the toolkit provides both a means to obtain resources and to publish them (sometimes referred to also as the &quot;read/write web&quot;. Farmer's model uses aggregators as coordinating services, operating at group and organisational levels, in the same manner as we identify Context services within the PLE Reference Model.
Personal Learning Environment - Jeremy Hiebert Hiebert, influenced by the models of both Wilson and Farmer, and also by experiences of e-Portfolios, offered this model in 2006. Hiebert concentrates on the processes that the PLE supports rather than on the architecture of the network in which the learner is a participant. The processes of the learner's toolkit are to collect, connect, reflect and publish. This is similar to an earlier version of the PLE Reference Model which was concerned with Collect, Connect, and Create. Again we see the essential requirement for symmetric (or at least, less asymmetric) two-way communication facilities. The use of a temporal dimension is also interesting, and this is something that was identified within the Prototype as an important set of functions - for archiving past activities, and for identifying new activities.
EduGlu - D'arcy Norman Norman presented this photograph of a whiteboard session in 2006, and in it we can start to see an elaboration of a Personal Learning Toolkit as a combination of aggregator of resources and organisational structures, with internal classification and management features for the user. This is similar to the combination of resource and social management patterns (groups, ratings, tags) with feeds and conduits (for resources, people, and contexts) in the PLE Reference Model.
Common Features Each of the models have some common features, which are also features of the reference model developed by the PLE project. Feeds for collecting resources and other data Each of the models uses a feed-based mechanism for collecting resources and other data; feeds are a useful generic mechanism for pulling together a heterogenous set of resources from a wide range of sources. Conduits for sharing and publishing As much emphasis is placed on sharing (remixing) and publishing resources as on collecting and reading - the learner is expected to be an active contributor. Services for interacting with organisations The boundary between individuals and institutions or organisations is mediated through services at the boundaries of organisations. Personal information management The learner spends time organising and connecting together the resources they collect into meaningful collection and groups, both for themselves but also to share with others. While the providers may supply tags or other useful metadata, ultimately there is a role for tools owned by the learner that enable personal management of information. The forming of connections between and amongst activity, resources and people is seen as an important process for the learner, perhaps echoing the sentiments of George Siemens's influential Connectivism theory. Ambiguity of teacher - learner role All the models considered are heavily learner-centric, and omit to mention the role of teachers. Implicitly there seems to be a conception that the roles of teacher and learner may be interchangeable, and that tools for learners could, and perhaps should, be the same as that of teachers. However, this is not fully articulated or explained in any of the models.
Might get away without this one.
A Reference Model for Personal Learning Environments Scott Wilson Colin Milligan
Existing Models (no existing systems) <ul><li>Our initial vision </li></ul><ul><li>Non-learning specific models </li></ul><ul><li>Responses to our vision </li></ul>
Common Features <ul><li>Feeds for collecting resources and other data </li></ul><ul><li>Conduits for sharing and publishing </li></ul><ul><li>Services for interacting with organisations </li></ul><ul><li>Personal information management </li></ul><ul><li>Ambiguity of teacher - learner role </li></ul>
Over lunch, <ul><li>Think about: </li></ul><ul><li>Do these models fit with your notion of a PLE </li></ul><ul><li>Do you have a PLE? If so, what is it? </li></ul>
Also, chat, browse, participate in collab activity (e.g. simulation)
Patterns <ul><li>Wide choice of systems examined that have characteristics of interest </li></ul><ul><li>From the systems we emerge common patterns into a pattern language </li></ul><ul><li>The pattern language is applied to the development of prototypes </li></ul>
Using the patterns <ul><li>For a developer of an application, the pattern language provides a reference point for solutions to problems in the PLE space, assisting the design and development process </li></ul><ul><li>The pattern language may be used as the basis of an evaluation framework for comparing the capabilities of different personal learning toolkits </li></ul><ul><li>The pattern language can assist in understanding the scope of the PLE space </li></ul><ul><li>The patterns can be used to identify the service needed to be offered within the environment </li></ul>
Services <ul><li>A number of key services recur in the patterns: </li></ul><ul><li>Activity Management </li></ul><ul><li>Workflow </li></ul><ul><li>Syndication and Posting </li></ul><ul><li>Group </li></ul><ul><li>Rating, Annotating, and Recommending </li></ul><ul><li>Presence </li></ul><ul><li>Personal Profile </li></ul><ul><li>Exploration and Trails </li></ul><ul><li>… and ones which are generic </li></ul>
Activity Management Service <ul><li>Service </li></ul><ul><li>allows a PLE user to </li></ul><ul><ul><li>publish activities, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>join activities others have created, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>contribute resources for activities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>access resources for activities. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Broker for Workflow service </li></ul>
Questions <ul><li>What systems have you experienced that might count as a PLE? </li></ul><ul><li>Can a PLE be an institutional tool? </li></ul><ul><li>What can’t you do with an eLearning 2.0 approach that you can with a VLE? </li></ul>