I went trough the publications about PLE to find a clear explanation of the conception. I found that the discussions are going on several years long. The most valuable article to me was published by the team (RWTH Aachen University) whose studies were known for me earlier. In the article they compare the Leraning Management (LM) and Knowledge Management (KM) models and referred to the new definition of Personal Learning Environment too.
Questions and Consequences
1.Why we need to compare LMS and PLE as opposite models? Both have its well definable role in education. PLE is (will be) a good model for individual knowledge biulding mainly in informal learning. It would be an unrealistic idea to believe that all the people, our students will be able to manage their learning process alone without being guided by the teachers.
2. I think it is not impossible at all to create a learner centred, motivating course model in LMS integrating the newest web 2.0 tools. It depends only on the course design how far we are focusing on involving the participants to generate heavy collaboration, to stimulate participants to take part in creative authoring work. Technically: we can integrate blogging, social softwares, e-portfolios, all possible communication and collaboration tools into an LMS as far as we need (as we see it in PLENK2010 too). For instance by integrating an e-portfolio or any blogger we can help participants to create their own PLE. After the course some of them will continue to develop his/her PLE, and others will not - it depends on their personality.
3. We are talking again about technology without admitting it. All the tools to create an own PLE are not well known yet, and not comfortable enough (The experiences in PLENK2010 prove that clearly). We have excellent web 2.0 tools, but to use them not only the basic ICT comptences needed. The people who perfect in IT, and are fascinated by the new tools will hardly see the problems of others who faces difficulties at every small step of trying to go on with these tools.
4. The studies about the Net Generation show clearly that even the digital natives need guiding in learning albeit they are excellent in networking (they are always connected!).
We are just over on an experiment with Hungarian teachers (http://tenegen.eu/tmoodle, in English http://tenegen.eu/course ), using Moodle. The aim was: participants, tutors, instructors should work together to discover how we can get closer to the Net Generation, to discover together the pedagogical potential of the new technology. During the course most of participants created his/her own PLE inspite of the fact that we provided them with core content, video tutorials, games, glossaries, links, tests and other obsolete traditional learning objects - beside the web 2.0 tools.
As a teacher I think that the different learning models are very important, but the main issue is to see clearly who are the learners, what they want to learn, why they want to learn, and how can I satisfy they demands. After that can be taken into consideration the possible tools (and the best model behind them) which are the best to reach the goals.
On the other hand being an informal learner of the digital age, I want to build my PLE as perfect as possible integrating all tools offered by new technology and I am happy to take part in PLENK10, in the collaboration platform to learn the experiences of people from all over the world :)!
See some (for me very important!) quotes from the article:
The PLE is the technology which enables to create a user-centric model
"In a learning context, a user-centric model means the creation of self-organised learning networks that provide a base for the establishment of a form of education that goes beyond course and curriculum centric models, and envisions a learner-centred and learner-controlled model of lifelong learning (Koper, 2004). This would mean a shift from e-learning to me-learning; a vision that will provide personalised learning experiences to every person everyday (Hodgins, 2005) and a move away from LMS to Personal Learning Environments (PLE). Milligan (2006) defines PLEs as systems with a set of tools which more fully support the learning process and are more closely matched to the needs of individual learners. These tools would give the learner greater control over their learning experience and would constitute their own personal learning environment, which they could use to interact with institutional systems to access content, assessment, libraries and the like. Consequently, the traditional instructor’s role description has to change. The new role of the instructor is to act as a knowledge broker, knowledge co-creator, mentor, coordinator and facilitator of the learning experience."
"Rather than integrating different tools into a centralised system, the idea is to provide the learner with a myriad of tools and hand over control to him/her to select and use the tools the way he/she deems fit. Chatti et al. (2006b) "
The main issue is: we use "knowlegde-push" or "knowledge-pull" model! Both can be implemented in now-a-days LMSs. And I would not mix PLE into the soup! I think PLE is mainly for learning created by the learners for themselves. Teachers should initiate learners to do so and show them how can they do that.
"Traditional LM and KM initiatives adopt a knowledge-push model and are concerned with exposing people to content and expecting that then learning will happen. Recognising that learning and knowledge are dynamic and flexible in nature, LM and KM approaches require a shift in emphasis from a knowledge-push to a knowledge-pull model
Knowledge-push and knowledge-pull
"Traditional LM and KM initiatives adopt a knowledge-push model and are concerned with exposing people to content and expecting that then learning will happen. Recognising that learning and knowledge are dynamic and flexible in nature, LM and KM approaches require a shift in emphasis from a knowledge-push to a knowledge-pull model
References
(1) Mohamed Amine Chatti* and Matthias Jarke: "The future of e-learning: a shift to knowledge networking and social software", Int. J. Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 3, Nos. 4/5, 2007.
(2) Educating the Net Generation, Diana G. Oblinger and James L. Oblinger, Editors, 2005 EDUCAUSE. http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen (Naeve, 2005). In the knowledge-pull case, people create an environment where they can pull content that meets their particular needs from a wide array of high-value but less structured resources like information repositories, communities and experts, thus creating much more of a flexible, real time learning and knowledge culture (Rosenberg, 2006)." (Naeve, 2005). In the knowledge-pull case, people create an environment where they can pull content that meets their particular needs from a wide array of high-value but less structured resources like information repositories, communities and experts, thus creating much more of a flexible, real time learning and knowledge culture (Rosenberg, 2006)."
Questions and Consequences
1.Why we need to compare LMS and PLE as opposite models? Both have its well definable role in education. PLE is (will be) a good model for individual knowledge biulding mainly in informal learning. It would be an unrealistic idea to believe that all the people, our students will be able to manage their learning process alone without being guided by the teachers.
2. I think it is not impossible at all to create a learner centred, motivating course model in LMS integrating the newest web 2.0 tools. It depends only on the course design how far we are focusing on involving the participants to generate heavy collaboration, to stimulate participants to take part in creative authoring work. Technically: we can integrate blogging, social softwares, e-portfolios, all possible communication and collaboration tools into an LMS as far as we need (as we see it in PLENK2010 too). For instance by integrating an e-portfolio or any blogger we can help participants to create their own PLE. After the course some of them will continue to develop his/her PLE, and others will not - it depends on their personality.
3. We are talking again about technology without admitting it. All the tools to create an own PLE are not well known yet, and not comfortable enough (The experiences in PLENK2010 prove that clearly). We have excellent web 2.0 tools, but to use them not only the basic ICT comptences needed. The people who perfect in IT, and are fascinated by the new tools will hardly see the problems of others who faces difficulties at every small step of trying to go on with these tools.
4. The studies about the Net Generation show clearly that even the digital natives need guiding in learning albeit they are excellent in networking (they are always connected!).
We are just over on an experiment with Hungarian teachers (http://tenegen.eu/tmoodle, in English http://tenegen.eu/course ), using Moodle. The aim was: participants, tutors, instructors should work together to discover how we can get closer to the Net Generation, to discover together the pedagogical potential of the new technology. During the course most of participants created his/her own PLE inspite of the fact that we provided them with core content, video tutorials, games, glossaries, links, tests and other obsolete traditional learning objects - beside the web 2.0 tools.
As a teacher I think that the different learning models are very important, but the main issue is to see clearly who are the learners, what they want to learn, why they want to learn, and how can I satisfy they demands. After that can be taken into consideration the possible tools (and the best model behind them) which are the best to reach the goals.
On the other hand being an informal learner of the digital age, I want to build my PLE as perfect as possible integrating all tools offered by new technology and I am happy to take part in PLENK10, in the collaboration platform to learn the experiences of people from all over the world :)!
See some (for me very important!) quotes from the article:
The PLE is the technology which enables to create a user-centric model
"In a learning context, a user-centric model means the creation of self-organised learning networks that provide a base for the establishment of a form of education that goes beyond course and curriculum centric models, and envisions a learner-centred and learner-controlled model of lifelong learning (Koper, 2004). This would mean a shift from e-learning to me-learning; a vision that will provide personalised learning experiences to every person everyday (Hodgins, 2005) and a move away from LMS to Personal Learning Environments (PLE). Milligan (2006) defines PLEs as systems with a set of tools which more fully support the learning process and are more closely matched to the needs of individual learners. These tools would give the learner greater control over their learning experience and would constitute their own personal learning environment, which they could use to interact with institutional systems to access content, assessment, libraries and the like. Consequently, the traditional instructor’s role description has to change. The new role of the instructor is to act as a knowledge broker, knowledge co-creator, mentor, coordinator and facilitator of the learning experience."
"Rather than integrating different tools into a centralised system, the idea is to provide the learner with a myriad of tools and hand over control to him/her to select and use the tools the way he/she deems fit. Chatti et al. (2006b) "
The main issue is: we use "knowlegde-push" or "knowledge-pull" model! Both can be implemented in now-a-days LMSs. And I would not mix PLE into the soup! I think PLE is mainly for learning created by the learners for themselves. Teachers should initiate learners to do so and show them how can they do that.
"Traditional LM and KM initiatives adopt a knowledge-push model and are concerned with exposing people to content and expecting that then learning will happen. Recognising that learning and knowledge are dynamic and flexible in nature, LM and KM approaches require a shift in emphasis from a knowledge-push to a knowledge-pull model
Knowledge-push and knowledge-pull
"Traditional LM and KM initiatives adopt a knowledge-push model and are concerned with exposing people to content and expecting that then learning will happen. Recognising that learning and knowledge are dynamic and flexible in nature, LM and KM approaches require a shift in emphasis from a knowledge-push to a knowledge-pull model
References
(1) Mohamed Amine Chatti* and Matthias Jarke: "The future of e-learning: a shift to knowledge networking and social software", Int. J. Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 3, Nos. 4/5, 2007.
(2) Educating the Net Generation, Diana G. Oblinger and James L. Oblinger, Editors, 2005 EDUCAUSE. http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen (Naeve, 2005). In the knowledge-pull case, people create an environment where they can pull content that meets their particular needs from a wide array of high-value but less structured resources like information repositories, communities and experts, thus creating much more of a flexible, real time learning and knowledge culture (Rosenberg, 2006)." (Naeve, 2005). In the knowledge-pull case, people create an environment where they can pull content that meets their particular needs from a wide array of high-value but less structured resources like information repositories, communities and experts, thus creating much more of a flexible, real time learning and knowledge culture (Rosenberg, 2006)."
No comments:
Post a Comment