Publisher’s version / Version de l'éditeur:
Canadian Network for Innovation in Education Conference 2010 : Heritage
Matters, inspiring tomorrow, 2010-04-01
READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE. https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright
Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées. Si vous n’arrivez pas à les repérer, communiquez avec nous à PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.
Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at
PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the first page of the publication for their contact information.
NRC Publications Archive
Archives des publications du CNRC
This publication could be one of several versions: author’s original, accepted manuscript or the publisher’s version. / La version de cette publication peut être l’une des suivantes : la version prépublication de l’auteur, la version acceptée du manuscrit ou la version de l’éditeur.
Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at
Moving towards a Personal Learning Environment
Kop, Rita
https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits
L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB.
NRC Publications Record / Notice d'Archives des publications de CNRC:
https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=534179f0-cf39-45a6-bb3b-da0ca4d59bfa https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=534179f0-cf39-45a6-bb3b-da0ca4d59bfa
Mo vin g to w a rd s a P e rs o n a l Le a rn in g En viro n m e n t
Rita Kop, Nation al Research Coun cil Can ada, Frederika.Kop@n rc-cn rc.gc.ca
Abs tra c t
Learn in g techn ologists have started thinkin g ‘outside the box’ of tradition al learn in g en viron m en ts in their research of Personal Learn in g En vironm en ts. Web2.0 techn ologies have proven to create a m esh of in terlin ked n odes an d con nection s on on lin e n etworks. The question is if a powerful pedagogical platform can be created by con nectin g in telligent recom m ender system s to these m edia.
In tro d u ctio n
‘Learnin g an d teachin g m ight be based on un con scious, but at the sam e tim e “deep-seated” pattern s of behaviour, n ot on ly of studen ts but also of the teachers. Their ritualisation lends solidity an d perm an en ce to the action s takin g place in the teaching space’ (Peters, p.10 ). It is on ly recen tly that attem pts have been m ade to leave the traditional class room and teaching m ethods behin d, initially in the 70 s through the radical perspectives ofFreire an d Illich, an d just in the past decade, under the in fluen ce of developin g techn ologies. Learn in g techn ologists, teachers an d learn ers have started to question the effectiven ess of dom in ant teachin g strategies developed over generations (Facer, 20 0 9; Illich, 1971). Peters highlighted that the space in which we teach an d learn defin es our approaches to the teachin g an d learning process. H e explained that particular characteristics are pertinent to particular places an d argued that tradition al teachin g spaces are n ot value neutral: ‘Each place in the experien ced space has its m eanin g for the person . The space does n ot exist without the person experien cing it.’ ‘The people in the space are at differen t distances to on e an other’ an d this has an effect on the quality of the in teraction s. ‘The learn in g en viron m en t in teracts with the learn ers an d tutor’. (Peters, 1999, p.9).
This research paper will discuss the relatively n ew con cept of the Person al Learn in g En viron m en t (PLE), in which the learn er is in con trol an d that m ight foster m eaningful learning experien ces in an open in form al learn in g space. It will highlight the pedagogy that could underpin such an environ m en t and the education al challen ges in developin g it, in cludin g on es related to learn er auton om y an d ‘critical literacies’.
‘P e d a go gy o f a b u n d a n ce ’ o r ‘p e d a go gy o f h u m a n b e in gs ’?
The past decades have seen m ajor changes in society un der in fluen ce of techn ology. Several com m en tators (Wellm an et al, 20 0 3; Shearm an , 20 0 0 ) have in dicated that the proliferation of
In form ation an d Com m unication s Techn ologies has blurred the boun daries between hom e, work, leisure, learning and play, and has reshaped our life-styles an d social in teraction . Accordin g to Facer (20 0 9) the socio-techn ological developm en ts an d chan ges in society will pose three m ajor challen ges to educators an d education al system s if they want to support learners in the com in g years in an en viron m en t in which they will thrive:
‘They require us to redesign education al practices to m eet the n eeds of n etworked in dividuals; they require us to develop system atic strategies to support learners to navigate a m uch m ore com plex learn in g lan dscape; They require us to re-exam ine our education al goals in the con text of econ om ic un certain ties’ .
(Facer, 20 0 9, p.7) Education al theorists have started thin kin g about the chan ges techn ology an d the com plex world in which we now live m ight im pose on pedagogy. Weller (20 0 9), for instance, envisioned a m ove towards a
‘pedagogy of abun dan ce’. H e argued that it has n ow becom e easy to organ ize inform ation and to ensure that people can use a variety of tools for learn in g on the Web as con ten t is free an d varied an d can be shared easily through social in teraction while usin g Web2.0 tools. Learning can take place on inform al n etworks rather than within form al in stitution al structures (Weller, 20 0 9). Others feel, however, that in the curren t com plex tim es adult educators also have a duty to be critical of the techn ologies an d should
teach adults what the im plication s of the techn ologies are for their lives. The views as expressed by Wheelahan (20 0 7, p. 145) prom ote a ‘pedagogy for hum an bein gs’, where ‘pedagogy itself m ust be
characterized by uncertainty, with kn owledge loosely fram ed, provision al, an d open -en ded’, sim ilar to the ideas of the ‘Risk Society’ expressed by Beck in the 1990 s. She sees a variety of differen t form s of
knowledge as being required to be able to live and learn successfully in un certain an d com plex tim es. The m ove away from ‘adult education ’ to becom e ‘lifelon g learn in g’ has for in stance been iden tified as on e of the con tributin g factors in a chan ge from the prom in en t position of propositional kn owledge fostered by in stitution al education towards a situation where kn owledge is related to real life situation s ‘as an education al tool in practice’ (Wheelahan , 20 0 7).
Curren t views of learn in g propose that kn owledge is no lon ger tradition al kn owledge tran sm itted from tutor to studen t, but created by them selves, out of experiences in their lives, together with earlier acquired kn owledge in con structivist views (Cobb, 1999), an d while en gagin g in a social in teraction in social con structivism . Lave an d Wen ger em phasise socio-cultural perspectives, where kn owledge is seen to be situated in its con text, and the learn er con trols his own learnin g, m akin g conn ection s with his own experiences an d kn owledge in cooperative activities with fellow learn ers. Knowledge is n o lon ger tran sferred, but created and con structed. Active participation in collaborative learn in g activities rather than passively receivin g knowledge from the teacher is key in these theories (Lave an d Wen ger, 20 0 2). The In tern et has added to the debate on kn owledge an d learn in g as learn in g techn ologists can see a different form of kn owledge em ergin g through the con nective n ature of n ew Intern et tools. Down es speaks of ‘conn ected kn owledge’, an d Siem en s of kn owledge in ‘con tin ual flux’ (20 0 8 , p5.) . They argue that ‘kn owledge … is distributive, that is, n ot located in an y given place . . . but rather con sists of the network of connections form ed from experience an d in teraction s with a kn owin g com m unity’ (Down es, 20 0 6, p. 1).
In fo rm a l le a rn in g
These theories form the basis for an argum ent in favour of creatin g an en viron m en t that supports learners in their learn in g in their own settin g, in teractin g with in form ation an d people of their choice, for instance through a Personal Learning Environm ent, rather than education al in stitution . With the in troduction of n ew techn ologies a n um ber of educationalists have in itiated a debate on in form al an d n on -form al learning (Downes, 20 0 6; Sharples et al, 20 0 5). Sharples et al see learn ing as ‘lifelong’ an d ‘lifewide’:
‘We learn across space as we take ideas an d learn in g resources gain ed in on e location an d apply or develop them in an other. We learn across tim e, by revisitin g kn owledge that was gain ed in an earlier, in a different context, and m ore broadly, through ideas an d strategies gain ed in earlier years providin g a fram ework for a lifetim e of learn in g. We m ove from topic to topic, m an agin g a ran ge of person al learn in g projects, rather than followin g a sin gle curriculum ’.
(Sharples et al, 20 0 5, p. 2)
It has been argued that m ost learn in g takes place in form ally outside education al in stitution s (Down es, 20 0 9, Wen ger, 1998 , Illich, 1971) an d that people should be supported in doin g so. Som e have argued that the tim e m ight be right to brin g into practice Illich’s vision of the 70 s, in which he advocated the deschoolin g of society, an d the provision of opportun ities to in dividuals to learn from the teacher of their choice, to m ake available to in dividuals the resources required to learn successfully, an d to give people the opportun ity to teach others if they feel they can con tribute to others learning (Illich, 1971). The control over the learning activity, the choice of tools used an d the choice of people with whom to com m un icate would lie with the learn er, rather than with an in stitution -based in structor.
On e m ight question if all learn ers would be capable of doin g so, an d over the past four decades the in tricacies of learn in g outside the education al in stitution al con text have been researched extensively (Can dy, 1991; Lon g, 1993; Bouchard, 20 0 9). Several factors have been iden tified that m ight be im portant to the developm en t of a learn in g en viron m en t that is position ed outside education al in stitution s.
Bouchard (20 0 9) clustered these factors in four groups, the first one related to m otivation , in itiative an d con fidence; the secon d one, to the sequen cin g of the learn in g activity an d the third on e, related to issues of lan guage an d com m un ication used in the learn in g processes. The im portan ce of aspects of ‘econ om y’ in learner autonom y was recognized as a fourth category; the choice to learn for personal gain such as for
future em ploym ent, a qualification , an d the possible cost of other study options in relation to the value of the kn owledge developed. When developin g an d design in g a PLE that facilitates auton om ous learn in g, these factors will have to be con sidered to en sure that people will be able to access an d use the
en viron m en t in a m ean in gful way. The secon d group of factors for instan ce, related to sequencing an d organising of activities would in a form al class room be the instructor’s respon sibility, but are in an auton om ous learn ing system lin ked to tasks that the learn er will have to carry out in dependently, which could be problem atic. The m otivation al factors would in a traditional adult education class be very im portan t in learners either participatin g in learn ing or n ot. If con fiden ce levels are low, it is n ot likely that a person would take up learn in g by usin g a PLE. On the other han d, as the learn er can m ake choices about what to learn an d how to learn , in addition to the availability of particular sem iotic features, such as m ultim edia, the learner m ight be m otivated to start a learn ing project. Moreover, the lan guage an d m ultim edia used will play an im portant role in who will be engaged by a PLE and who will n ot.
Critica l Lite ra cie s
To learn indepen den tly usin g a PLE people n ot on ly need to becom e auton om ous learn ers, but also need particular skills an d com petencies. There is n o ‘overarchin g tutor’ to guide learners an d to challen ge their ideas and beliefs or to help them in gatherin g in form ation and un derstan din g the m edia and the way they represent in form ation. Instead, the onus is on learners them selves to m ake these judgm ents an d to validate in form ation an d kn owledge, an d to fin d kn owledgeable others who can help them with this. Down es (20 0 9) discussed the con cept of ‘critical literacies’ in relation to successful learn in g on in form al n etworks, while Bouchard an d Kop em phasised the need for in dividuals to be able to ‘n etwork’ effectively, which requires con siderable levels of m eta-cogn ition an d collaboration skills that, they argue, n ot all learners possess (Kop and Bouchard, 20 10 , in press).
Moreover, the n ew learn ing en viron m ent requires learn ers to be active in their learn in g by editin g an d producin g in form ation them selves in a variety of form ats an d by com m un icatin g an d collaboratin g with others in n ew ways. People n eed to have a certain level of creativity an d in n ovative thin kin g, in addition to feelin g com petent, con fident an d com fortable at usin g ICT applications to be able to do so. Learners need to be flexible, able to adapt to n ew situations and able to solve problem s that they com e across durin g their learn in g journ ey. An ecdotal eviden ce suggests that people learn som e of these in form ally from each other, but other critical literacies, i.e. inform ation literacy, develop at a very early age and will be hard to acquire at a later date. Critical thinking skills and m edia literacy seem to be best learn ed in a form al en viron m en t as the presence of an expert to challen ge beliefs an d show opposin g poin ts of view to the learner seem s required for a critical awaren ess to develop (British Library, 20 0 8 ; Walters and Kop, 20 0 9). Som e argue however that these skills will develop while en gagin g in on lin e com m un ication with others, or via challen ging feedback or recom m en dation s through the PLE system itself (Downes, 20 0 9).
A m o d e l fo r le a rn in g in a P e rs o n a l Le a rn in g En viro n m e n t
H ow then would people learn by usin g a PLE? Most learn in g experien ces are based on six com pon ents: gatherin g of in form ation , social in teraction , activity, reflection , con ceptualization an d ‘repurposin g’ of in form ation , although researchers disagree on the em phasis put on the differen t com ponents (Down es 20 0 6, Mason 20 0 6, Mayes, 20 0 2). These elem ents can all be incorporated in a techn ologically driven learn in g en viron m en t, but the challen ge would be their in terplay, as this relation ship will be one of the determ in in g factors in the quality an d depth of the learn in g that takes place. Figure 1 shows a m odel of learn in g while usin g a PLE. It is based on Kolb’s learnin g cycle, but com ponents have been added to provide a better represen tation of how people m ight learn while usin g a PLE.
A n um ber of techn ical com pon ents are seen to be vital to support this m odel of learn in g. A person al profiler that stores person al in form ation about the user an d supports the learn er with finding inform ation by suggestin g an d ratin g particular in form ation , tools an d application s based on the profile. In form ation will be accum ulated by the learn er an d fed in to the learn in g cycle at several stages. This could be at the plan n in g stage, the ‘repurposin g’ or con ceptualizin g stage, or it could be while sharin g an d collaboratin g or while receivin g feedback from others, depending on the learner’s requirem ents.
Figure 1 Model of Person al Learn in g Environ m en t based learn in g
People will n eed to be able to edit an d produce resources to be able to ‘repurpose’ in form ation , which could be a blog or a posted video an d will help the user to create n ew con tent an d support distribution to other sources. An editor would support several areas in the learn in g m odel, in cludin g the recordin g, activity, con ceptualizin g an d repurposin g stages.
A Person al Developm en t Planning tool, an ePortfolio-like application , would also be required for focused aggregation of digital item s – ideas, eviden ce, reflection s, feedback etc. which learn ers can select to share with others. It would offer learn ers the opportunity to reflect on their person al developm ent, their (lifelon g) learn in g an d their em ployability, skills, career and work-developm ent. It is m eant to support m eta-cogn ition an d the organ izin g, plan n in g and recordin g stages of the learning m odel. A learn er advisor service could have the role of challen gin g the learn er through feedback by others on his or her learning activities, a ‘peer-assessm en t tool’. Feedback from others on the learn in g project will stim ulate reflection an d thin king about the learn ing process. This in addition to a recom m ender system that would recom m en d in form ation based on earlier learn in g projects.
The aim of the PLE would be differen t from other inform ation gatherin g tools as it provides learn ers with tailor m ade in form ation in a type of application that is cen tred on the studen t an d would in clude the student’s personal educational record, portfolio, busin ess and education al con tacts, com m un ication s an d creativity tools an d related services. In short, it would com bine all tools and applications a learner needs to start a learn in g journ ey with recom m en dation s of inform ation based on earlier searches and personal profile, in addition to feedback from others on their learning, which would allow for a form of vicarious learning (Mayes, 20 0 2). Web2.0 techn ologies have proven to be well suited to creatin g a m esh of
in terlin ked n odes on on line networks and research is currently being carried out to establish if a powerful pedagogical platform to enhan ce people’s in form al learn in g will be created when in telligen t recom m en der system s are con nected to these tools,. By the tim e the con feren ce is bein g held we will be able to report on this research to date.
Re fe re n ce s
Bouchard, P. (20 0 9). Som e factors to consider w hen Designin g Sem i-auton om ous Learning
Env ironm ents.Electronic J ournal of e-learning, Volum e 7, (2),J une 20 0 9, pg. 93-10 0 . Available from http:/ / www.ejel.org/ Volum e-7/ v7-i2/ v7-i2-art-2.htm (Accessed 24th Novem ber 20 0 9) British Library (20 0 8 ) Inform ation behav iour of the researcher of the future, a Ciber briefin g paper,
Un iversity College Lon don , Available at http:/ / www.bl.uk/ news/ pdf/ googlegen.pdf (Accessed 30 th J une 20 0 8 )
Candy, P. (1991). Self-direction in learning: A com prehen siv e guide to theory an d practice. San Francisco: J ossey Bass.
Cobb, P. (1999) Where is the Mind? in P. Murphey (ed) Learners, Learn ing & Assessm en t, Lon don , Paul Chapm an Publishin g Ltd, pg135-150
Down es, S. (20 0 6), Learn in g N etw orks an d Conn ectiv e Know ledge, available from
http:/ / it.coe.uga.edu/ itforum / paper92/ paper92.htm l (Accessed 6th J anuary 20 0 9)
Down es, S (20 0 9) Speaking in Lolcats: W hat Literacy M ean s in teh Digital Era, Sem inar for Educational Com puting Organization of On tario, Richm on d H ill, Ontario, Can ada
Facer, K. (20 0 9), Education al, social and techn ological futures: a report from the Bey ond Current H orizons Program m e, FutureLab, Bristol, Available at
http:/ / www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/ outcom es/ reports/ final-report-20 0 9 (accessed 3rd
February 20 10 )
Illich, I. (1971) Deschooling society , Reprin ted in 1978 by Marion Boyars, Lon don
Kop,R. and Bouchard, P. (20 10 – forthcom in g) The Role of Adult Educators in the Age of Web2.0 , in M.Thom as (Ed) Web 2.0 in Education: Apply ing the N ew DigitalLiteracies
Lave, J . an d Wen ger, E. (20 0 2) Legitim ate peripheral participation in com m un ities of practice in R H arrison et al (eds), Supporting lifelon g learning, v olum e 1, Perspectives on learn in g, London, Routledge Falm er, pg111-126
Lon g, H . B. (1993). Em ergin g perspectives of self-directed learning. Research Center for Professional an d Con tin uin g Education : Un iversity of Oklahom a.
Mason , R. (20 0 6) Learn ing techn ologies for adult con tin uin g education , in Studies in con tin uing Education , Vol 28 , No. 2, Pg.121-133
Mayes, T. (20 0 2). The Techn ology of Learn in g in a Social World, in R H arrison et al (eds), Supportin g Lifelong Learn in g, v olum e 1, Perspectiv es on learning, London , Routledge Falm er, pg.163-175 Peters, O. (1999) N ew Learn in g Spaces, A Pedagogical Model for n ew learn ing spaces, FernUniveritaet
H agen, Denm ark. Available at http:/ / www.tbc.dk/ pdf/ peters-new_ learnin g_ spaces.pdf
(Accessed 4th J uly 20 0 8 )
Sharples, M., Taylor, J . and Vavoula, G. (20 0 5), Towards a theory of Mobile Learn in g, the 20 0 5 MLearn Con feren ce, Cape Town , MLearn , Available from
http:/ / www.m learn.org.za/ CD/ papers/ Sharples-%20 Theory%20 of%20 Mobile.pdf (Accessed 6th
Shearm an, C. (20 0 0 ), Shapin g the Future: Local con n ection s in a Global W orld Flaxroots technology-conference 20 0 0 , Wellington, New Zealand
Siem en s (20 0 8 ). N ew structures and spaces of learning: The sy stem ic im pact of con n ectiv e kn ow ledge, con nectiv ism , an d n etw orked learn in g. Paper presented to: Encontro Sobre Web 2.0 . Braga, Portugal, October 10 , 20 0 8 .
Walters, P. and Kop, R. (20 0 9). H eidegger, digital techn ology and post-m odern education : from Bein g-in -cyberspace to m eetg-ing on MySpace”. Bulletg-in of Scien ce, Techn ology & Society , August 20 0 9, Volum e 29, No.4, 278 -28 6.
Weller, M. (20 0 9). The pedagogy if abundance. In vited speaker Con nectivism and Connective Knowledge 0 9 course, Un iversity of Man itoba an d Nation al Research coun cil Can an da, Available from http:/ / www.slideshare.n et/ m weller/ a-pedagogy-of-abundance (Accessed 16th novem ber 20 0 9. Wellm an, B., Quan-H aase,A., Boase, J . and Chen, W. (20 0 3) The social Affordances of the In ternet for
N etw orked In div idualism , J ournal of Com puter Mediated Com m unication, Vol 8 , iss. 3 Available at http:/ / jcm c.indiana.edu/ vol8 / issue3/ wellm an .htm l (accessed 0 8 / 0 2/ 0 8 )
Wenger, E. (1998 ) Com m un ities of Practice: Learning, M ean in g an d Iden tity , New York, Cam bridge Un iversity Press
Wheelahan , L. (20 0 7). ‘What are the im plication s of an uncertain future for pedagogy, curriculum and qualifications?” In Osborne et al (Eds). The Pedagogy of Lifelon g Learning: Un derstan din g effectiv e teaching an d learn in g in div erse con texts, Routledge, London and New York, pg. 143-154.
B io gra p h y:
Rita Ko p works as a researcher for the National Research Council Canada on their PLE project. Before that she was Assistan t Professor in Adult Con tin uin g Education at Swan sea Un iversity in the UK. H er research in terests are person alized learn in g, distan ce education and learn in g through on lin e n etworks
