Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Future Teachers Looking for their PLEs: the Personalized Learning Process Behind it all

8,123 views

Published on

Presentation to the PLE Conference 2012 in Aveiro (Portugal).
This paper reports the results of a naturalistic study obtained from a teaching experience in higher education with first year students of the Primary School Teacher degree. In this study we want to analyse how they are organizing their activity for learning (reading, reflecting and sharing knowledge) and how those learning processes are integrated on their PLE.

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

Future Teachers Looking for their PLEs: the Personalized Learning Process Behind it all

  1. 1. Future Teachers Looking for their PLEs: the Personalized Learning Process Behind it allLinda Castañeda & Jordi Adell Universidad de Murcia - Universitat Jaume I
  2. 2. Patchworking Web 2.0 for learning: Introducing ICT building Personal learning Environments Linda Castañeda & Javier Soto Universidad de Murcia Spain
  3. 3. ICT For Social Education 150 first year students Faculty of Education
  4. 4. TheTechnologicalPerspectiveUse for Learning Awareness of ICT Communication Tools for Leisure Students Love Tools in Tasks Educational Strategies independency, autonomous work
  5. 5. What about learning? 7
  6. 6. “The collection of tools,information sources, connectionsand activities that a person use to PLElearn habitually”
  7. 7. http://teachweb2.blogspot.com.es/2010/01/personal-learning-environments-student.html
  8. 8. Image: We begin by charting a coursehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/12426416@N00/1721982928 Exploring new ways for analysing 11
  9. 9. Processes 12
  10. 10. Primary School Teacher Degree
  11. 11. 30 freshmen
  12. 12. from 18 - 43 YO
  13. 13. 24 women
  14. 14. 6 groups
  15. 15. 6 Stable GroupsAutonomous, Independent, Interdependent 6 Activities 2 weeks each
  16. 16. Mind Maps (“mental processes”) 1 for Each Activity 1 for Group Activity3 basic learning components Related with any Technology??
  17. 17. Activities
  18. 18. Activities
  19. 19. Activities
  20. 20. Activities
  21. 21. Group
  22. 22. Group
  23. 23. Group
  24. 24. Group
  25. 25. Group
  26. 26. Mind Maps (“mental processes”) Analysis by Group General Analysis3 basic learning components Related with any Technology??
  27. 27. Findings... 30
  28. 28. Findings... Activity Tasks Methodolo gy 31
  29. 29. Findings...Technologically supportedReading NOT looking4InsideNot CriticalTeacher THE sourceNot Colleagues Reading 32
  30. 30. Findings...Technologicallyand NOT TechsupportedMore variety onToolsMultimediacodesDependsActivity Doing 33
  31. 31. Findings...TechnologicallysupportedBLOGSNSFinal version notfeedbackColleagues arepublic Sharing 34
  32. 32. PLE Tech and Not Tech SupportedMutually complementary Conclusions 35
  33. 33. PLEPedagogical Approach Hard Tech Based Conclusions 36
  34. 34. Reading, Doing andSharing as basic part of their activity Conclusions 37
  35. 35. A SEQUENCEFirst recover info –from an expert- Conclusions 38
  36. 36. A SEQUENCEFirst recover info –from an expert- Do something Conclusions 39
  37. 37. A SEQUENCE First recover info –from an expert- Do somethingFinally you show it to others Conclusions 40
  38. 38. Metacognitionis NOT perceived as a learning process Conclusions 41
  39. 39. Future Teachers Looking for their PLEs: the Personalized Learning Process Behind it all Linda Castañeda & Jordi Adell Universidad de Murcia - Universitat Jaume I<jordi@uji.es> <lindacq@um.es> <http://www.lindacastaneda.com><http://elbonia.cent.uji.es/jordi/> Twitter: @lindacqTwitter: @jordi_a

×