h1

How is PLE framework different from what iCamp does?

March 12, 2007

Mart suggested to take a look at PLE (Personal Learning Environments) to see how much they have in common with iCamp.
I have selected the following interesting aspects from their documents and here are my comments:

http://www.knownet.com/writing/weblogs/Graham_Attwell/entries/6521819364

http://del.icio.us/tag/PLE_Workshop_2006

*A separation of service from instrument

We are trying to do this by using the pedagogical affordance framework in activity systems and coupling it with tool’s pedagogical affordances in iCamp Folio tool.

*Gives access to services with the instrumental and resource control of the user, personal hosting

We do not deal the resource issues from the control aspect, rather we see content residing in locked repositories or freely floating in the knowledge communities.

*Exploit emerging web 2.0 services

We definitely try the same.

*Integrate formal and informal learning

We focus on formal learning, but as we also tackle with self-directed learning, this has an overlap with the informal learning practices.

*the role of individual in organizing own learning

It is one of iCamp focuses, but do we look what is the ROLE of individuals in their own learning, rather we try to support individuals with the learning environment and best practices for being able of self-directing one’s learning effectively

*self-directed learning, networking for linking knowledge, artifacts and people
*PLE facilitate connections between people and various software

the former is the main focus of iCamp, the latter may be in the focus of self-directed learning and augmenting one’s learning landscapes

*narrowed distinction between produces and consumers, open content ecology

we relay on this claim

*allow learner-configured desktop applications as the basis of environments

we support learner-configuration idea, but not on the desktop application basis..but this is not excluded possibility

*competency based learning to achieve outcomes in certain contexts

we support competency-based aspects which are not contextualized into specific domains

*new literacy of information navigation – ability to find info and use it in a new way – experiential and discovery learning
*ability to evaluate information, making judgement on the application of certain tools

iCamp aims at developing these competencies, we try to support users with the tools for selecting suitable tools for their planned learning activities, iCamp Folio

*obtain knowledge and skills ubiquitously in work context

not in iCamp focus

*trying things on action

not in primary focus

*claiming accreditation for informal learning

we don’t address directly with this issue

*the process of scaffolding becomes internalized – lurking practices in other communities

this relates with networking and self-directed learning aspects we deal with

*variable connectivity – online and offline functions
*reluctancy of revealing personal data

I think we are not focusing on this

*multiple presentation possibilities for competences

it is taken into an account as part of the best practices what icamp develops and tests in Trials

*supporting interoperability and standards

This is what iCamp tries when developing the mutually interoperable sets of social software and LMS systems

*assist learners in planning and sequencing learning

This will be supported in iCamp Space by the iCamp Folio, which enables of constructing learning activities, and thereby defining also the set of suitable interoperable learning tools for PLE

*collecting, connecting, reflecting and publishing as activities of self-directed learning

We have defined 10 types of activity patterns, but we have not discussed which support merely self-directed and which networking or collaborative learning

The 4 self-directed activity pattern types describe operations:
*collecting activity: aggregating, combining, storing, organizing, filtering and prioritizing artifacts

we have aggregate, reorganise, record, filtering..we don’t have prioritizing operations

*reflecting activity: reviewing, connecting concepts, remembering, synthesizing, journalizing/blogging, private/public group permissions

we have connecting, publishing (giving access), the rest aspects occur as parts of affordance components (properties)

*reflecting activity: group forming, shared goals/concepts/information/interests/values/tags/visions

We have separate activities for community formation, regulating the shared performance, and regulating the generation of common ground on shared content-related aspects

*Publishing activity: select, modify, combine, attribute, target and publish, print burn, send

we have operations edit, delete, create, record.. we should maybe have send

In general it seems the activity pattern types we have generated on pedagogical basis are more varied and enable of better construction of sequences of activities for self-directed, collaborative and networked learning challenges. Secondly, we have a framework to describes the pedagogical affordances of all these activity systems, thereby relating the activities with tools and separating the services from concrete instruments.

Some future development ideas iCamp shares with PLE framework:

*exploring the implications of changing forms and patterns of learning for educational institutions;
*exploring ways of representing and patterning learning activities interactions;
*exploring ways of utilising different services – both within and between institutions and with broader communities – to support PLE-type activities;
*exploring issues in standards and interoperability to facilitate PLE-type development;

*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

We intend to give the developers the pedagogical activity patterns with the affordances of the activities for the same purpose.

*The pattern language may be used as the basis of an evaluation framework for comparing the capabilities of different personal learning toolkits

We intend to use pedagogical affordances of activity patterns for comparison and evaluation of learning spaces

*The pattern language can assist in understanding the scope of the PLE space

I can see similarity with the ideas of iCamp Space

*The patterns can be used to identify the service needed to be offered within the environment

We have same intentions with the pedagogical patterns related with pedagogical affordances which suggest tools and interrelations between tools-subjects-artifacts

Advertisements

One comment

  1. […] Secondly we argued which term is more precise – personal learning environments or personalised learning environments? PLE incorporates technology, material resources, people and everything it is a general term meaning environment concept in broader sense, so we discussed to use this and make some arguments with british group. […]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: