I attended the Elluminate session at #PLENK2010 this evening with a presentation by Martin Weller speaking about Research, Technology and Networks. It was heartening to see almost 100 participants log and participate in a very lively text discussion, even if fewer were willing to use the audio.
I think Martin is overly pessimistic about how social networking and social software is being used in research. Of course there are still barriers to be overcome, particularly the insistence by many institutions on traditional forms of scholarship and research as the basis for future career progression and for funding. And in a comment related to the Open University’s Social Learn, a project he previously led, he showed how business goals can impact against openness in research processes and innovation in products.
However, I am seeing a marked move twoards openess, collaboration and sharing in a number of the projects and networks in which I participate. Access to video conferences has facilitated more collaborative approaches to project reviews and to managing research tasks. Twitter, blogs and other social network applications have allowed us to share work in progress outside immediate project partnerships. And once more, social networks are allowing us to discover new colleagues and friends, outside our narrower institutional or project communities.
I am also convinced that the use of Cloud applications is going to have a major impact on the way we work. In Pontydysgu we have moved to Google Docs in the last month. And without consciously thinking about it, we are able to work together on research documents and even better to comment on each others work and ideas as a work in progress. This would never have happened through emailing drafts between colleagues.
Jen Hughes is working on ideas around Evaluation 2.0. This is also based on the idea of openness and the involvement of wider communities in evaluation processes. We hope to open out an evaluation in progress to all of you int he next week or so see what happens!

Storytelling Part 1: Change of Storytelling from ith storytelling on Vimeo.

I found this video on Jim Groom’s website set up to support a course on storytelling. Jim says “Here is a fascinating and quick seven minute video that features interviews with a variety of scholars, theorists, activists, and participants in the changing nature of storytelling. How do they frame social media and participatory culture in this equation?”

It is particularly good to see that Jim has put the whole course up on an open WordPress blog. There’s lots of explore there – Open Learning at its best!

The last week saw some interesting posts on Open Education – see  Richard Hall’s recent blog post Open education: the need for critique, Terry Wassall on Open education, people, content,  process . This debate will not go away and although it is progressing at a frustratingly slow speed it is central to attempts to use technology for changing tecahing and learning, rather than replicating and managing the present educational systems.

I also suspect that one of the drivers of such a debate is the increasing pressures on education – on the one hand cutbacks in funding, on the other hand increasing pressure for higher levels of education and for lifelong learning.

Having said that it is perfectly legitimate to advocate open educational resources as improving existing institutional provision. But even at that level, OERs challenge ideas around the ownership of knowledge and the use of that knowledge.

It is also striking that we are developing a linked set of ideas – Open Educational Resources, Personal Learning Environments, Personal Learning Networks. I share some of Richard Hill’s concerns over individualisation. At the end of the day learning is a social process. And indeed there are risks, if PLEs and PLNs are merely seen as different ways of pursuing learning within educational institutions. It is striking that the right wing English education minister, Michael Grove, has been promoting private profit driven universities as a means of increasing the use of distance learning and educational technology. However, there is an alternative discourse within the PLE / PLN development looking to promote social and community based learning to reach outside the educational institutions, very much as posed by Illich in his ground breaking treatise on deschooling society.

Whilst I agree with Terry Wassall in placing the act of tecahing and learning at the centre of debates over critical pedagogy, I also think that the widening contexts and domains of learning also could play a key role in such a critique. It has been the very narrowing down of what has been seen as legitimate in terms of learning practice and domains that has led to the hierarchical systems of education and knowledge that we see today and to the devaluing of both certain forms of learning – such as vocational education – and the disregarding of different learning domains – especially the workplace and community.

In that respect, a critical pedagogy needs to reach back and link with older traditions of workers self education as well as embrace the potentials of technology/

To be continued……..

Stephen Downes wrote last night that national programs supporting open educational resources (OERs) are springing up. He noted the publication of a Green Paper describing and making recommendations for OER initiatives in Brazil. Also, in Holland, he said, the government has launched the Wikiwijs project (literally: Wiki Wise), which “is an open, internet-based platform, where teachers can find, download, (further) develop and share educational resources. The whole project is based on open source software, open content and open standards.” Meanwhile the Washington State colleges board has passed a resolution saying “All digital software, educational resources and knowledge produced through competitive grants, offered through and/or managed by the SBCTC, will carry a Creative Commons Attribution License.”

To these initiatives can be added the launch of JISC OER Infokit (interestingly developed on a PBWorks wiki site) aiming to explore a range of considerations from specific technical issues to barriers and enablers to institutional adoption. They say “This infoKit aims to both inform and explain OERs and the issues surrounding them for managers, academics and those in learning support. It is aimed at senior managers, learning technologists, technical staff and educators with an interest in releasing OERs to the educational community.”

Stephen Downes quotes the Brazil Green Paper saying: “Education policy and projects that combine infrastructure investment with a coherent ‘network’ approach to content are the most likely to have significant positive impact and realize the goals of the policy. The ability of the Internet to create radical increases in innovation is not an accident – but it is also not guaranteed to happen simply through putting computers and courses onto the network. This ‘generative’ effect of networks comes from the combination of open technologies, software platforms that allow creative programming, the right to make creative and experimental re-use of content, and the widespread democratization of the skills and tools required to exercise all of those rights.”

The issue of democratisation is taken up in an excellent blog post entitled “Open Education: the need for critique” by Richard Hall. Richard says ” democratic practices in education are critical in enhancing our broader socio-educational life, and underpin radical re-conceptualisations of educational practice, for example mass intellectuality, a pedagogy of excess and student-as-producer.” He goes on to say: “To use the term learning revolution demands a critique of the political economics of education, and the social relations that exist therein. This cannot be done in terms of OERs without an engagement with critical pedagogy.”

Richard points to risks in present discussions about PLEs, OERs and informal learning.

That the role/importance of individual rather than social empowerment is laid bare, and that within a libertarian educational structure, the focus becomes techno-determinist. The risk here is that, accepting the position of others in meaningful, socially-constructed tasks, technology is the driver for individual emancipation [although we rarely ask “emancipation for or from what?”]. Moreover, we believe that without constant innovation in technology and technological practices we cannot emancipate/empower ever more diverse groups of learners.

That we deliver practices that we claim are radical, but which simply replicate or re-produce a dominant political economy, in-line with the ideology of accepted business models. So that which we claim as innovatory becomes subservient to a dominant mode of production and merely enables institutions to have power-over our products and labour, rather than it being a shared project [witness the desire for HE to become more business-like].

That we fetishise the outcomes/products of our labour as a form of currency. This is especially true in the case of open educations resources, which risk being disconnected from a critique of open education or critical pedagogy, and PLEs which risk being disconnected from a critique of their relationship to our wider social relations.

That we fetishise the learner as an autonomous agent, able to engage in an environment, using specific tools and interacting with specific OERs, so that she becomes an economic actor, rather than seeing her engagement as socially emergent and negotiated.

He puts forward a number of questions around iopen education and OERs.

How do we prioritise engagement with the broader, open context of learning and education, with trusted peers? How do we raise our own literacy around openness, in order to legitimise sharing as social practice and as social process, and not as a response to a target of OER-production-as-SMART-objective?

Is the production of OERs a means of furthering control over our means of production and our labour? Is there a risk that the alleged transparency of production of OERs is used to further control and power-over, for example, teachers and teaching by impacting contracts of employment?

Though education, how do we enable the types of participatory engagement and re-production of groups like the Autonomous Geographies Collective or Trapese, where the production of OERs is a secondary outcome to the re-fashioning of social relationships that it enables? By so doing, we might just enable groups to engage with the activity-areas that Harvey highlights as a process of production, rather than fetishising the production of things.

How do we resist the increasing discourse of cost-effectiveness, monetisation, economic value, efficiency that afflicts our discussion of open education? How do we move the argument around sustainability and open education away from a focus on economic value? Too often our discussion of open education is reduced to a discussion of OERs and this, in turn, is reduced to a discourse of cost and consumption. As a result, our role in education is commodified and objectified.

Do we ask who is margnalised in the production of OERs or in open education? Are non-Western cultures engaging in open education and the production of OERs through the languages of colonialism or by focusing on native socio-cultural forms? At what point do OERs and open education become part of a post-colonial discourse focused upon new markets?

How do we utilise OERs to open-up trans-disciplinary approaches to global crises, like peak oil and climate change? How do we enable the emerging array of open subject resources to be utilised across boundaries (be they personal, subject, programme, course, institutional or national), in order to challenge sites of power in the University and beyond? These resources enable ways of challenging hegemonic, mental conceptions of the world and framing new social relations. This requires curriculum leadership. These crises require socio-educational leadership.

These questions challenge us to reconceptualise what we mean by open education. More than that they force us to start exploring a critical pedagogy and what that implies in terms of meanings and our actions as educators and educational researchers and developers I hope Richards blog post gets the attention from the community it deserves. I will be trying to answer some of the questions on this blog in the next few days.

Moi drodzy, już niedługo już za momencik odbędzie się PLE konferencja #PLE_BCN w Barcelonie (8-9 lipca), którą przygotowujemy już od dawna (od dobrych 7 miesięcy). Właśnie dopinam wszystko do końca – przygotowywuję newsletter, prezentację na pecha kucha no i na warsztaty, które poprowadzę wraz z Cristina Costa (UK), Wolfgang Reinhardt (DE) i George Couros (CA) na temat definicji konceptu osobistych środowisk uczenia się. Tutaj możecie zobaczyć początkową kolekcję definicji. Warsztaty te będą miały formę „collaborative mind mapping“, czyli wspólne tworzenie mapy myśli w grupie realne i wirtualnej. W tym celu będziemy posługiwać się programem mindmeister, który daje bardzo wiele możliwści wspólnego tworzenia map myśli w tym samym czasie i asynchronicznie. Zarówno uczestnicy konferencji, jak i wszystkie inne osoby, które mają dostęp do Internetu i konto w minmeister bedą mogły uczestniczyć w tych warsztatach! Także zapraszam Was wszystkich serdecznie do brania udziału i tworzenia wspólnej mapy myśli! Warsztaty te odbędą sie w piątek, 9 lipca 15:45 do 17:00. We wtorek podam na tej stronie linka do początkowej mapy myśli i hasło do zalogowania się w piątek … ciąg dalszy nastąpi …

Yesterday, Jenny Hughes and I (well, more Jenny than me) made a presentation on syntax to an seminar organised as part of the Rita Kop and Stephen Downes’ Critical Literacies online course. The idea of Syntax is based on Saussurean linguistics and is difficult stuff (at least to me). But it is also extremely interesting. Syntax is the study of the principles and rules for constructing a sentence. But, of course, it can also be used as a way of studying other areas, including education and training. Much of the presentation focused on the relations between paradigms and syntagms. Syntagms describe the relations between the parts of different paradigms. The sum of the associate elements has a meaning different from the parts and changes the meaning of the parts. As jen said the elements of one paradigmatic set in the presence of another may change into something we don’t know. And, according to Richard Harland, the syntagm is the site of new meaning. Syntagmatic thinking, she went on to say, is called ‘radical transcendence’. And here it gets interesting. Semes are the site of old meaning. The meaning of a single piece of understanding gets left behind – or gets lost on the meaning of the new whole. I am sure that is happening now in our understanding of what comprises or means teaching and learning. As learning becomes ever more embedded in the internet and in escapes from the institution, then both our understanding of the meaning of learning and education and of schooling will change. Schools will become juts a seme – a site of old meaning.

However syntagmatic thinking is also based on the idea focusing not on the novelty of combinations but on the novel act of combining. And I fear that in using technology for teaching and learning up to now we have f9cused on the novelty of combinations of technology and education, rather than look as the novel act of combining technology and learning together.

This post is both a note for myself but also is a trailer. We are working on producing a slidecast of the presentation which I will post here as soon as it is ready.

NB Critical Literacies is a free and open online course. Whilst not as well attended as previous course Stephen has run with George Siemens, it is raising many interesting ideas and is well worth dipping into.

Wiecie juz na pewno, ze chcemy na Paradygmacie 2.0 eksperymentowac z roznymi formami blogowania. Nasz pierwszy wpis mial forme rozmowy, dyskusji na temat poczatkow i podstaw PLE. Dzisiaj dla odmiany  wywiad. Czym rozniy sie od rozmowy? Wlasciwie najbardziej tym, ze zadajacy pytania nie duzo o sobie informuje. Kilka dni temu rozmawialam na Skypie z Piotrem Peszko, autorem bloga eLearning 2.0 i moderatorem forum elearningu na goldenline.pl, o tym, jak wyglada elearning w firmach, tzn. czy stosuje sie rozwiazania 1.0 czy 2.0, w jaki sposob wprowadza sie siec spoleczna, jakie czynniki wplywaja na to, czy uda sie wprowadzic wiki, blogi, twittera itd itp. … Oto pierwsza czesc zapisu naszej rozmowy.

Ilona: Ok, zacznijmy od ogolow – czym sie zajmujesz?

Piotr: Aktualnie projektuję rozwiązania e-learningowe dla produktu o nazwie GetThere. Właśnie uruchomiłem II edycję projektu dla osób 45 +, w którym jest dużo elearningu, a także zajmuję się wdrożeniem rozwiązania do zarządzania dokumentacją w modelu single-sourcing i połączeniu go z elearningiem.

Ilona: Co to jest single-sourcing model?

Piotr: Model zarządzania treścią  – kontentem w różnej formie – online, offline itd. Jest oparty na xml-u i pozwala na wielokrotne wykorzystywanie treści i jej konfigurowanie.

Ilona: Masz przyklad?

Piotr: Załóżmy, że masz bloga, piszesz różne treści, tagujesz … i nagle chcesz zrobić z niego książkę. Lipa – nie da się szybko i sprawnie. Single sourcing to podejście, które pozwala na edytowanie treści w jednym miejscu i eksportowanie jej do różnych – zdefiniowanych uprzednio formatów, np. elearningu, wiki, html-a, htmla dla urządzeń mobilnych, pdf, doc itd. itp. i wykorzystania tagów oraz tzw. conditionals zależnych od formatu wyjściowego

Ilona: Aha, ciekawe, a masz moze linka do jakiejs aplikacji opartej na tym modelu?

Piotr: Polecam DocBook na początek. To już trzeci taki project. Każdy inny, ale założenia podobne – po co pisać internal/external reference tutorial + online help + elearning, jeśli każdy z nich korzysta z tej samej treści. Trzeba zdefiniować źródło, procesy i ogień – niech się samo robi 🙂

Ilona: Dzieki, to ciekawe. A co Ty robisz na AGH?

Piotr: Na AGH juz nie wiele, ponieważ  od marca pracuję w Sabre Holdings Polska, pożegnałem się  z uczelnią 🙂

Ilona: To ciekawe, a to co firmy robia w Polsce to bardziej elearning 1.0 czy 2.0?

Piotr: Korporacje po prostu przenoszą swoje wypróbowane rozwiązania na nowy grunt. Posiadają LMS-y wielkie bazy szkoleń, dostęp do niemal wszystkich książek online, wiki, sociale itd. E-learning 1.0 istnieje jako pewna warstwa materialów odniesienia, a profile funkcjonują w wewnętrznych systemach społecznościowych. Także elearning 1.0, elearning 2.0 i workplace learning to chleb powszedni.

Ilona: A jak laczycie elearning 1.0 i 2.0? Na przyklad, w jaki sposob wprowadzacie i stosujecie wiki, blogi? Slyszala, ze wie niektorych korporacjach wprowadza sie wiki w taki sposowb, ze kazdy pracownik musi napisac iles tam stron i iles tam stron skomentowac I to wszystko w scisle okreslonym czasie.

Piotr: Hmm… no nie wiem czy przymus to najlepsze rozwiązanie. Wdrażałem kiedyć taki social w korporacji i wymuszanie okazało się fiaskiem, dopiero danie czegoś w zamian, np.  szybki dostęp do informacji poprzez wewnętrzny twitter, okazało się skuteczne. Problem jest taki, że ta firma jest bardzo nie-polska, a bardzo amerykańska, dlatego pewne rozwiązania są i funkcjonują globalnie.

Ilona: Czyli co w tym przypadku wplywa na udane wprowadzanie sieci spolecznych w firmach?

Piotr: Z mojego doświadczenia wynika, że musi zostać przekroczona pewna masa krytyczna, która pozwala społeczności uczącej się funkcjonować. Równiez pewien stopień anonimowości. On jest ważny w socialach. Zawsze są opory przed odsłonięciem swojej niewiedzy. To tak jak z tłumem zadającym pytania, albo dyskutującym. W grupie raźniej, stadne z nas zwierzę i lepiej się czujemy jeśli możemy zadać pytanie albo zasięgnać rady anonimowo nie narażając się na jakieś uwagi, czy docinki. Social network nie wypali w grupie 20 osob, ale np. w polskim klonie twittera – blipie bardzo często pojawiają się pytania kierowane “w eter” z tagiem #drogiblipie.

Ilona: No to opowiedz, jak to bylo z tym twitterem w twojej firmie? Byla masa krytyczna? Odpowiedni stopien anonimowosci? Wszystko poszlo gladko?

Piotr: To było jakieś 2-3 lata temu – facebook raczkował. Pracowników było około 200, twitter był, blip był, ale raczej jako eksperymenty. Okazało się jednak, że za wcześnie…

Ilona: Dlaczego za wczesnie?

Piotr: Bo nikt nie znał tych narzędzi i nie wiedział po co one są, jak z nich korzystać i co to daje. Dopiero jak okazało się, że ktoś to robi i to daje efekty zaczęto się tym interesować. To takie troszkę małpowanie. Z mojej perspektywy to mało one mają wspólnego z uczeniem się, raczej zabawa i zabijanie czasu – pracy 🙂 Tak to niestety wygląda. Społeczności takie jak linkedin czy goldenline to głównie źródło potencjalnych pracowników / zleceniodawców + wymiana informacji ekspertów.

Ilona: Czy w firmach w Polsce mozna ogolnie uzywac twittera? W Niemczech jest coraz wiecej firm, ktore to ograniczaja, wlasnie z tego powodu, ze nie sa uzywane do pracy, tylko do “zabawy”.

Piotr: W wielu firmach nie ma przeszkód. To zależy od modelu pracy, ja na przykład nie wyobrażam sobie pracy bez 1) Google, 2) last.fm i kilku innych

Ilona: Czyli nie ma zadnych problemow z eLearningiem 2.0?

Piotr: cóż… z elearningiem 2.0 jest problem, bo nawet “specjaliści” dużo mówią na jego temat, a sami nie sa w stanie stworzyć we własnym miejscu pracy takiego środowiska, które byłoby chociażby namiastką 2.0. Moim zdaniem tez i w w firmach elearning 2.0 potrzebuje pewnej masy krytycznej zapaleńców, wtedy nie ma przeszkód i nie uczenie sie nie zależy od środków miejsca, czasu…

Ilona: A sa jakies dobre przyklady PLE w Polsce?

Piotr: Szczerze powiem, że się nie spotkałem. Może za mało szukam :), albo nic nie wystaje ponad dno.

Ilona: Nawet u Ciebie w firmie ;)?

Piotr: No to co teraz robimy to jest eLearning 2.0. Ja np. zarządzam projektem korzystając z Wiki. Wrzucam tam zasoby, uczestnicy komentują, dokładają swoje. Mam przygotowany szablon projektu, kopiuje go i zaczynamy.

Ilona: Na zasadzie samoorganizacji – kto co da, czy masz jakas strategie zarzadzania?

Piotr: Przewaznie stosuje SCRUM w standardowych, typowych projektach, a na wyższym poziomie sprawdza się PRINCE2. Bardzo dobre w Wiki jest to, że nie ma konieczności przygotowywania raportów, generowania dokumentów itd. Wszystko jest online – transparentne dla wszystkich. Wiadomo co się dzieje, kiedy i jak. No i właśnie tutaj wszyscy się uczą, bo nie ma innego wyjścia. Jesteś w projekcie = działasz na wiki.

Ilona: Ok,a wady?

Piotr: 1. Wypada zrezygnować z załączania plików; 2. Trzeba nauczyć konsekwencji stosowania Wiki; 3. muszą być jasne reguły – kto co może.

Piotr: No i hmmm… trzeba umieć korzystać z wiki. A to czasami największy problem. Chociaż, nie wyobrażam sobie projektu, w którym nie korzysta sie z jakiegoś narzędzia współpracy online.

Ilona: Jakie sa krytyczne punkty korzystania z wiki?

Piotr: Rozmiar projektu, poziom digital literacy, sposób organizacji,  simplicity matters – łatwość obsługi produktu rozwiązującego istniejący problem to najlepiej sprzedawalna rzecz.

Ilona: Czyli jakie uzasadnienie biznesowe ma uzywanie sieci spolecznych w korporacjach?

Piotr: 1. Szybkość komunikacji, 2. Budowanie bazy wiedzy

Piotr: chociaż… najważniejsze moim zdaniem jest umożliwienie przekazania informacji – wiedzy – od super-specjalistów wewnątrz firmy do klientów, lub przynajmniej sprzedawców. Bo sprzedawca jest ze swoją wiedzą nt. produktu bliżej klienta

Ilona: Z tym przekazywaniem wiedzy w korporacjach to tez taki kij co ma dwa konce. jedej strony jest motywacja, zeby pokazac sie jako ekspert. Z drugiej nie moge odkryc wszystkich kart, bo ewentualnie nie bede juz ekspertem.

Piotr: To zależy od struktury organizacji i tego w jaki sposób takie aktywności są wspierane – nie wymuszane. Jesli się jest ekspertem to zawsze jest co pokazywać. Cooper dobrze o tym napisał w “Wariaci rządzą domem wariatów” – polecam,

Ilona: Dzieki. Ale czesto przeciez jest tak, ze ludzie w firmach nie zdradzaja takich informacji, ktore stanowia podsawe ich USP (unique selling proposition).

Piotr: No trochę tak, ale np. jeśli ja projektuje rozwiązania elearningowe to nie mam problemów ze zrobieniem szkolenia na temat wersjonowania i jego znaczenia. Moim zdaniem wiedza eksperta jest tak szeroka, że zawsze jest się czym dzielić

Ilona: I zdradzasz wszystkie twoje sztuczki?

Piotr: Oczywiście, że nie. Ale nie mam oporów ze zdradzaniem szczegółów warsztatu. Np. w tamtym tygodniu prowadziłem warsztaty na temat screencastów i dokładnie mówiłem jak i czym to robię.

Ilona: A gdzie byly te warsztaty? W waszej firmie?

Piotr: Nie na Uniwersytecie Pedagogicznym, dla nauczycieli 🙂

Ilona: Ho ho, i co beda stosowac?

Piotr: No nie wiem, raczej ciężko

Ilona: Dlaczego?

Piotr: Nie ma zapotrzebowania…

Ilona: No co ty?

Piotr: Wiesz to tak jak seks z filozofem: ma czym, ma gdzie, ale po co…

Ilona: (rofl)

No tak, ale to juz inny rozdzial. Druga czesc rozmowy z Piotrem Peszko na tema eLearningu 2.0 w szkolnictwie wyzszym juz w krotce 😉  Ciekawa jestem, czy Wasze doswiadczenia z eLearningiem 2.0 w firmach sa podobe. Czy wszedzie jest problem z brakiem krytycznej masy? Co myslicie na temat anonimowosci w spolecznych sieciach w firmie? Przeciez anonimowosci moze oznaczac tez problemy … Moze ktos z Was ma ochote podzielic sie swoimi doswiadczeniami z perspektywy uzytkownika eLearningu w firmie? To byloby super ciekawe. Czekam na Wasze komentarze!

Another section of my new paper, now entitled ‘The Future of Learning Environments. The section looks at Personal Learning Environments and Vygotsky.

The emergence of Personal Learning Environments

Dave Wiley, in a paper entitled ‘Open for learning: the CMS and the Open Learning Network‘ and co-written with Jon Mott, explains the failure of Technology Enhanced Education as being due to the way technology has been used to maintain existing practices:

“by perpetuating the Industrial Era-inspired, assembly line notion that the semester-bound course is the naturally appropriate unit of instruction (Reigeluth, 1999).”

The paper quotes Herrington, Reeves, and Oliver (2005) who argue that course management software leads universities to “think they are in the information industry”. In contrast to”the authentic learning environments prompted by advances in cognitive and constructivist learning theories”:

“the industrial, course management model has its center of gravity in teachers generating content, teachers gathering resources, teachers grouping and sequencing information, and teachers giving the information to students.”

In contrast, socio-cultural theories of knowledge acquisition stress the importance of collaborative learning and ‘learning communities’. Agostini et al. (2003) complain about the lack of support offered by many virtual learning environments (VLEs) for emerging communities of interest and the need to link with official organisational structures within which individuals are working. Ideally, VLEs should link knowledge assets with people, communities and informal knowledge (Agostini et al, 2003) and support the development of social networks for learning (Fischer, 1995). The idea of a personal learning space is taken further by Razavi and Iverson (2006) who suggest integrating weblogs, ePortfolios, and social networking functionality in this environment both for enhanced e-learning and knowledge management, and for developing communities of practice.

Based on these ideas of collaborative learning and social networks within communities of practice, the notion of Personal Learning Environments is being put forward as a new approach to the development of e-learning tools (Wilson et al, 2006) that are no longer focused on integrated learning platforms such as VLEs or course management systems. In contrast, these PLEs are made-up of a collection of loosely coupled tools, including Web 2.0 technologies, used for working, learning, reflection and collaboration with others. PLEs can be seen as the spaces in which people interact and communicate and whose ultimate result is learning and the development of collective know-how. A PLE can use social software for informal learning which is learner driven, problem-based and motivated by interest – not as a process triggered by a single learning provider, but as a continuing activity.

Personal Learning Environments are by definition individual. However it is possible to provide tools and services to support individuals in developing their own environment. In looking at the needs of careers guidance advisors for learning Attwell. Barnes, Bimrose and Brown, (2008) say a PLE should be based on a set of tools to allow personal access to resources from multiple sources, and to support knowledge creation and communication. Based on an initial scoping of knowledge development needs, a list of possible functions for a PLE have been suggested, including: access/search for information and knowledge; aggregate and scaffold by combining information and knowledge; manipulate, rearrange and repurpose knowledge artefacts; analyse information to develop knowledge; reflect, question, challenge, seek clarification, form and defend opinions; present ideas, learning and knowledge in different ways and for different purposes; represent the underpinning knowledge structures of different artefacts and support the dynamic re-rendering of such structures; share by supporting individuals in their learning and knowledge; networking by creating a collaborative learning environment.

Whilst PLEs may be represented as technology, including applications and services, more important is the idea of supporting individual and group based learning in multiple contexts and of promoting learner autonomy and control. Conole (2008) suggests a personal working environment and mixture of institutional and self selected tools are increasingly becoming the norm. She says: “Research looking at how students are appropriating technologies points to similar changes in practice: students are mixing and matching different tools to meet their personal needs and preferences, not just relying on institutionally provided tools and indeed in some instances shunning them in favour of their own personal tools.”

Vygotsky and Personal Learning Environments

A Personal Learning Environment is developed from tools or artefacts. Vygotsky (1978) considered that all artefacts are culturally, historically and institutionally situated. “In a sense, then, there is no way not to be socioculturally situated when carrying out an action. Conversely there is no tool that is adequate to all tasks, and there is no universally appropriate form of cultural mediation. Even language, the ‘tool of tools’ is no exception to this rule” (Cole and Wertsch, 2006). Social networking tools are culturally situated artefacts. Jyri Engestrom (2005) says “the term ‘social networking’ makes little sense if we leave out the objects that mediate the ties between people. Think about the object as the reason why people affiliate with each specific other and not just anyone. For instance, if the object is a job, it will connect me to one set of people whereas a date will link me to a radically different group. This is common sense but unfortunately it’s not included in the image of the network diagram that most people imagine when they hear the term ‘social network.’ The fallacy is to think that social networks are just made up of people. They’re not; social networks consist of people who are connected by a shared object.”

Vygotsky’s research focused on school based learning. He developed the idea of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) which is the gap between “actual developmental level” which children can accomplish independently and the “potential developmental level” which children can accomplish when they are interacting with others who are more capable peers or adults.

In Vygotsky’s view, interactions with the social environment, including peer interaction and/or scaffolding, are important ways to facilitate individual cognitive growth and knowledge acquisition. Therefore, learning presupposes a specific social nature and a process by which children grow into the intellectual life of those around them. Vygotsky said that learning awakens a variety of internal developmental processes that are able to operate only when the child is interacting with people in his (sic) environment and in cooperation with his peers. Once these processes are internalized, they become part of the child’s independent developmental achievement (Vygotsky, 1978).

Vygotsky also emphasized the importance of the social nature of imagination play for development. He saw the imaginary situations created in play as zones of proximal development that operate as mental support system (Fleer, 2008).

Vykotsky called teachers – or peers – who supported learning in the ZDP as the More Knowledgeable Other. “The MKO is anyone who has a better understanding or a higher ability level than the leaner particularly in regards to a specific task, concept or process. Traditionally the MKO is thought of as a teacher, an older adult or a peer” (Dahms et al, 2007). But the MKO can also be viewed as a learning object or social software which embodies and mediates learning at higher levels of knowledge about the topic being learned than the learner presently possesses.

The role of a Personal Learning Environment may be not only that of a tool to provide access to ‘More Knowledgeable Others’ but as part of a system to allow learners to link learning to performance in practice, though work processes. And taking a wider view of artefacts as including information or knowledge accessed through a PLE, reflection on action or performance may in turn generate new artefacts for others to use within a ZPD.

Dahms et all (2007) say that Vygotsky’s findings suggest methodological procedures for the classroom. “In Vygotskian perspective, the ideal role of the teacher is that of providing scaffolding (collaborative dialogue) to assist students on tasks within their zones of proximal development”(Hamilton and Ghatala, 1994). ”During scaffolding the first step is to build interest and engage the learner. Once the learner is actively participating, the given task should be simplified by breaking it into smaller sub-tasks. During this task, the teacher needs to keep the learner focused, while concentrating on the most important ideas of the assignment. One of the most integral steps in scaffolding consists of keeping the learner from becoming frustrated. The final task associated with scaffolding involves the teacher modelling possible ways of completing tasks, which the learner can then imitate and eventually internalise” (Dahms et al., 2007).

Social media and particularly video present rich opportunities for the modelling of ways of completing a task, especially given the ability of using social networking software to support communities of practice. However, imitation alone may not be sufficient in the context of advanced knowledge work. Rather, refection is required both to understand more abstract models and at the same time to reapply models to particular contexts and instances of application in practice. Thus PLE tools need to be able to support the visualisation or representation of models and to promote reflection on their relevance and meaning in context. Although Vygotsky saw a process whereby children could learn to solve novel problems “on the basis of a model he [sic] has been shown in class”, in this case the model is embodied in technological artefacts (although still provided by a ‘teacher’ through the creation of the artefact).

Within this perspective a Personal Learning Environment could be seen as allowing the representation of knowledge, skills and prior learning and a set of tools for interaction with peers to accomplish further tasks. The PLE would be dynamic in that it would allow reflection on those task and further assist in the representation of prior knowledge, skills and experiences. In this context experiences are seen as representing performance or practice. Through access to external symbol systems (Clark, 1997) such as metadata, ontologies and taxonomies the internal learning can be transformed into externalised knowledge and become part of the scaffolding for others as a representation of a MKO within a Zone of Proximal Development. Such an approach to the design of a Personal Learning Environment can bring together the everyday evolving uses of social networks and social media with pedagogic theories to learning.

References

Agostini, A., Albolino, S., Michelis, G. D., Paoli, F. D., & Dondi, R. (2003). Stimulating knowledge discovery and sharing. Paper presented at the 2003 International ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA.

Attwell G. Barnes S.A., Bimrose J. and Brown A, (2008), Maturing Learning: Mashup Personal Learning Environments, CEUR Workshops proceedings, Aachen, Germany

Clark, Andy. Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. Cambridge, Massachusetts: A Bradford Book, The MIT Press, 1997.

Cole M. and Werstch J. (1996), Beyond the Individual-Social Antimony in Discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Michael Cole, University of California, San Diego

Conole G. (2008), New Schemas for Mapping Pedagogies and Technologies, Ariadne Issue 56 , http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue56/conole/

Dahms M, Geonnotti K, Passalacqua. D Schilk,N.J. Wetzel, A and Zulkowsky M The Educational Theory of Lev Vygotsky: an analysis http://www.newfoundations.com/GALLERY/Vygotsky.html

Engestrom J (2005) Why some social network services work and others don’t — Or: the case for object-centered sociality, http://www.zengestrom.com/blog/2005/04/why_some_social.html

Fischer, M. D. (1995). Using computers in ethnographic fieldwork. In R. M. Lee (Ed.), Information Technology for the Social Scientist (pp. 110-128). London: UCL Press

Fleer M and Pramling Samuelsson I, (2008), Play and Learning in Early Childhood Settings: International Perspectives, Springer

Hamilton R and Ghatala E, (1994) Learning and Instruction, New York: McGraw-Hill, 277.

Herrington, J., Reeves, T., and Oliver, R. (2005). Online learning as information delivery: Digital myopia. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(4): 353-67.

Vygotsky L.(1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

Wiley D. and Mott J. (2009), Open for learning: the CMS and the Open Learning Network, in education, issue 15 (2), http://www.ineducation.ca/article/open-learning-cms-and-open-learning-network

Wilson, S., Liber, O., Johnson, M., Beauvoir, P., Sharples, P., & Milligan, C. (2006). Personal learning environments challenging the dominant design of educational systems. Paper presented at the ECTEL Workshops 2006, Heraklion, Crete (1-4 October 2006).

I am truly appalled at the digital economy bill now being rushed through the UK parliament.

The bill includes a three strikes rule to cut off internet access for alleged file sharers – which according the Guardian newspaper “could suspend the broadband connections used by anybody accused of file sharing three times whether or not they are convicted of copyright infringement.”

The Guardian also reports that “the notorious Clause 17 – which has now had its scope diminished – had proposed to give the secretary of state the power to update copyright law without parliamentary assent.”

They go on to say “the Liberal Democrats caused uproar when they proposed an amendment to the bill apparently aimed at bringing more judicial oversight into the system – but that critics could end up shutting down major websites such as YouTube.”

“The change – which gives the high court the power to shut down entire websites if they host “substantial” amounts of copyright infringing material – came in for strong criticism, particularly after it emerged that the language used was identical to a proposal by British music industry body the BPI.”

In a blog entitled “The Day Democracy Died“, Lilian Edwards, a specialist in online law said:

This is simply disgraceful. It is law making by industry, for industry, on the nod of all three major political parties (and against the grassroots sentiment of at least one of them). This is no longer just about copyright, or downloading, or even freedom of speeech and due process. It is about democracy, and whether this country is run by MPs or by lobbyists and Big Capital. It is a day when as a democrat, and a lawyer, (and not as a “copyright activist” as one commenter wrongly called me – I believe in copyright, I just don’t believe in destroying the legal system to enforce it) ) I am deeply , deeply disappointed.

This law raises series issues for education. In a paper entitled “What is the significance of Open Source Software for the education and training community?” and written in 2005 (I think) i said the issue of sharing raises important social issues over ownership and content. I quoted Dai Griffith who addressed some of these issues at the open session of the June 2004 SIGOSSEE project meeting in Limerick on Open Source software in education.

He argued that the Web has changed the technology for publishing and that the publishing industry and legal framework is responding by seeking to reinforce the existing structures. The way they are doing this is by promoting the metaphor of ideas as property as ‘Intellectual property’. This metaphor says:

• An idea is an object
• Copyright is property
• Reuse of an idea is theft

Dai Griffiths rejected this metaphor. He asked how do you know if someone “steals” your copyright materials? Copyright infringement is illegal, he said, but it is not theft, pointing out there was art, music and literature before copyright. Copyright is a limited monopoly granted by the state. It is important, but it is not an inalienable right.

Copyright is a body of inconsistent, ad-hoc arrangements to regulate markets. Dai Griffiths argued that copyright should benefit the citizen, not the author or the publisher. He quoted the US House of Representatives report on the Berne Convention:

“The constitutional purpose of copyright is to facilitate the flow of ideas in the interest of learning.”… The primary objective of our copyright laws is not to reward the author, but rather to secure for the public the benefits from the creations of authors”

(Implementation Act of 1988, cited in LR Patterson & SW Lindberg, The Nature of Copyright 1991).

I would argue that the primary objective of the digital economy bill is not to reward the author, nor to secure for the public the benefits from the creations of authors, but to secure the interests of an outdated, self seeking and degenerate industry. They are not interested in music, they are not interested in film, they are not interested in literature, the are not interested in art, they are not interested in learning, they only care for their profits. This bill has nothing to do with the digital economy – it is about reinforcing copyright. Shame on our politicians for supporting them.

Through the Mature project I have been invited to submit a proposal for a lecture or workshop for the JTEL Summer School to be held in Ohrid in June. The JTEL summer schools, the publicity claims, usually attract about 80 researchers, providing an exciting forum for cross-disciplinary dialogue, fostering new research collaborations and partnerships, and an opportunity for the next generation of TEL researchers to gain insight from leading experts in the field.

The summer school is being organised by the Stellar network and proposals were asked to explain how they contribute to the network’s three Grand Challenges:

• Connecting learners
• Orchestrating learning
• Contextualising learning environments

So here’s my proposal. I enjoyed writing it and if anyone else is interested in us running such a workshop juts get in touch.

Short description

The workshop will focus on the use of internet radio in education.

1) An exploration of the use of media (and particularly internet radio and television) for learning and shared knowledge developmentThis will include looking at issues such as:

a) The appropriation of media

b) The change from passive media to interactive Web 2.0 supported media and the changing distinctions between broadcaster/program planner and listener/consumer.

c) How media such as radio can support the development of online communities

d) The use of media to bridge contexts and provide spaces for exploration and shared meaning making.

2) A practical hands on session on how to plan develop and broadcast live internet media. This will include storyboarding, interviewing, finding Creative Commons licensed music, making jingles, mixing and post processing, directing and producing and using the technology for live broadcasts.

3) The third session is planned to take place in a lunchtime or evening session. This will be a live 45 minute to one hour broadcast “Sounds of the Bazaar – Live from Ohrid”. It is hoped to involve all summer school participants in the broadcast. The broadcast will be publicised in advance through iTunes, Facebook, Twitter and other social software platforms. It is also intended to use the boradcast to link to other researchers in TEL from around the world not able to be at the summer school. The programme will be recorded and made available through the Summer School web site, the Mature project web site, the Pontydysgu web site and through iTunes.

Contribution to the Grand Challenges agenda

The workshop is primarily designed to contribute to the Grand Challenge of Contextualising virtual learning environments and instrumentalising learning contexts.

Live internet radio provides both a shared context and space for learning, with universal reach outside of institutional or national boundaries, whilst at the same time allowing individual to collectively contribute to the development of shared artefacts, which in themselves can become part of the repertoire of a community of practice. Radio also offers a means of actively engaging learners in a community and through appropriation of what was a push (or broadcast) media, through merging with Web 2.0 tools and standards allows community participation and self expression.