There is a set of prerequisite conditions needed to be considered in order to implement this approach in a classroom setting. These requirements include:
■ Defining a learning project: The learning project gives a meaning and direction to the students’ learning activities. It also defines the tangible and measure able learning objectives and expected outcomes needed by the assessment and evaluation rubric. ■ Meeting technological requirements: i. e. providing reasonable access to Internet
and required web tools, providing an initial technical platform to keep students’ PLEs together and allow them to observe each other learning experiences. ■ Providing initial support: i. e. appropriate learning content, a list of relevant
experts outside of the classroom setting to contact, guidelines to evaluate the quality and validity of online content, training students the basic functionalities of the selected web tools, defining an appropriate group working mechanism, and defining appropriate assessment and evaluation rubric.
Summary
This paper proposes a pedagogy-driven framework for developing Web 2.0 based PLEs in educational settings. Supporting students’ control through defining and adopting active roles in order to equip them with necessary competencies and skills needed to deal with the challenges of current knowledge intensive era is the main objective of this frame- work. Teachers can use this framework as a guideline to design appropriate enhanced technology-based learning activities to scaffold and assist students to develop and
deploy Web 2.0 based PLEs to accomplish their learning projects. Further research is supposed to be needed to test, evaluate and improve the roadmap introduced.
rEfErEnCEs
[Ale 06] Alexander, Bryan (2006): Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Edu-
cause review 41(2), 32.
[And 01] Anderson, Lorin W.; Krathwohl, David R.; Bloom, Benjamin Samuel B (2001):A taxonomy for
learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn & Bacon.
[Att 07] Attwell, Graham (2007): Personal Learning Environments-the future of eLearning?.eLearning
Papers, 2(1), 1–8.
[Att 10] Attwell, Graham (2010): Personal learning environments and Vygotsky. Retrieved June 2013
from http://www.pontydysgu.org/2010/04/personal-learning-environments-and-vygotsky/ [Blo 56] Bloom, Benjamin S.; Engelhart, M. D.; Furst, Edward J.; Hill, William H.; Krathwohl, David
(1956): Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David
McKay, 19(56).
[Blu 91] Blumenfeld, Phyllis C.; Soloway, Elliot; Marx, Ronald W.; Krajcik, Joseph S.; Guzdial, Mark; Pal- incsar, Annemarie (1991): Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting
the learning. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 369–398.
[Bow 10] Bower, Matt; Hedberg, John G.; Kuswara, Andreas (2010): A framework for Web 2.0 learning
design. Educational Media International, 47(3), 177–198.
[Boy 07] Boyd, Danah. (2007): The significance of social software. BlogTalks reloaded: Social software
research & cases, 15–30.
[Bro 89] Brown, John Seely; Collins, Allan; Duguid, Paul (1989): Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational researcher,18(1), 32–42.
[Bro 00] Brown, John Seely (2000): Growing up: Digital: How the web changes work, education, and the
ways people learn. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 32(2), 11–20.
[Buc 11] Buchem, Ilona Attwell, Graham; Torres, Ricardo (2011): Understanding Personal Learning Envi-
ronments: Literature review and synthesis through the Activity Theory lens. Proceedings of the second PLE Conference,(pp. 1–33). Southampton, UK.
[Buc 12] Buchem, Ilona. (2012): Psychological Ownership and Personal Learning Environments: Do
sense of ownership and control really matter?. Proceedings of the 3th PLE Conference, Aveiro, Portugal. Retrieved from: http://revistas.ua.pt/index.php/ple/article/view/1437/1323.
[Cha 10] Chatti, Mohamed Amine; Ridwan Agustiawan, Mohammad; Jarke, Matthias; Specht, Marcus (2010): Toward a personal Learning Environment Framework. International Journal of Virtual
and Personal Learning Environments, 1(4), 66–85.
[Che 07] Chen, Pearl; Chen, Huei-Lien (2007): Knowledge building and technology dynamics in an
online project-based learning community. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 1–16.
EbrahimRahimi,JanvandenBerg,WimVeen
[Chu 08] Churches, Andrew (2008): Bloom’s taxonomy blooms digitally. Tech & Learning, 1.
[Con 07] Conole, Grainne (2007): Describing learning activities. Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age:
Designing and delivering e-learning, 81–91.
[Cou 10] Couros, Alec (2010): Developing Personal Learning Networks for Open and Social Learning.
Emerging Technologies in Distance Education, 109–128.
[Dab 11] Dabbagh, Nada; Reo, Rick (2011): Tracing the Roots and Learning Affordances of Social Soft-
ware. Web 2.0-Based E-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for, 1.
[Dab 12] Dabbagh, Nada; Kitsantas, Anastasia (2012): Personal Learning Environments, social media,
and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3–8.
[Dow 06] Downes, Stephen (2006): Learning Networks and Collective Knowledge. Instructional Tech-
nology Forum, available: Retrieved from: http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper92/DownesPa- per92.pdf.
[Dow 07] Downes, Stephen (2007): Learning networks in practice. Emerging Technologies for Learning,
2, 19–27. Retrieved from: http://www.downes.ca/files/Learning_Networks_In_Practice.pdf.
[Dre 10] Drexler, Wendy (2010): The networked student model for construction of personal learning
environments: Balancing teacher control and student autonomy. Australasian Journal of Educa- tional Technology. 26(3), 369–385.
[Dro 07] Dron, Jon. (2007): Control and constraint in E-Learning: Choosing when to choose. Idea Group
Publishing.
[Dun 11] Dunlap, Joanna C.; Lowenthal, Patrick R. (2011): Learning, unlearning, and relearning: Using
Web 2.0 technologies to support the development of lifelong learning skills. E-Infrastructures and Technologies for Lifelong Learning: Next Generation Environments, George D. Magoulas, ed.(Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2010), 46–52.
[Gar 87] Garrison, D. Randy; Baynton, Myra (1987): Beyond Independence in distance education: The
concept of control. The American journal of distance education, 1(3).
[Gun 97] Gunawardena, Charlotte N.; Lowe, Constance A.; Anderson, Terry (1997): Analysis of a global
online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social building of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431.
[Hil 94] Hillman, Daniel CA; Willis, Deborah J.; Gunawardena, Charlotte N. (1994): Learner–interface
interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30–42.
[Jen 06] Jenkins, Henry (2006): Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for
the 21st century (Part two).Chicago: MacArthur Foundation.
[Joh 08] Johnson, Mark; Liber, Oleg (2008): The personal learning environment and the human condi-
tion: From theory to teaching practice. Interactive Learning Environments, 16, 3–15.
[Jon 95] Jonassen, David H; Reeves, Thomas C. (1995): Computers as cognitive tools: Learning with
technology, not from technology. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 6.2: 40–73.
[Kea 98] Kearsley, Greg; Shneiderman, Ben (1998): Engagement Theory: A Framework for Technolo-
[Kop 08] Kop, Rita; Hill, Adrian (2008): Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the
past?. International Review of research in open and distance learning, 9(3).
[Kir 02] Kirschner, Paul A (2002): Can we support CSCL? Educational, social and technological affor-
dances for learning. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 7–47). Heerlen, The Netherlands: Open University of the Netherlands.
[Lee 10] Lee, Mark JW; McLoughlin, Catherine ( 2010): Web 2.0-based E-learning : applying social infor-
matics for tertiary teaching. Information Science Reference, 43–69.
[Mej 06] Mejias, Ulises (2006): Teaching social software with social software. Innovate: Journal of On-
line Education, 2(5).
[Moo 89] Moore, Michael G. (1989): Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Dis-
tance Education, 3(2), 1–6.
[Nel 09] Nelson, Jennifer; Christopher, Angela; Mims, Clif (2009): Transformation of Teaching and Learn-
ing. TechTrends 53(5), 81.
[O’R 05] O’Reilly, Tim (2005): What Is Web 2.0. Design patterns and business models for the next gener-
ation of software. Retrieved from: http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.
[Pen 12] Pena-Lopez, Ismael (2012): Personal Learning Environments and the revolution of Vygotsky’s
Zone of Proximal Development. In ICTlogy, #107, Barcelona: ICTlogy.
[Rah 13a] Rahimi, Ebrahim; Van den Berg, Jan; Veen, Wim (2013a): A framework for designing enhanced
learning activities in web2.0-based Personal Learning Environments. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2013, p. 2222–2231. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
[Rah 13b] Rahimi, Ebrahim; Van den Berg, Jan; Veen, Wim (2013b): Investigating teachers’ perception
about the educational benefits of Web 2.0 personal learning environments. eLearning Papers, 35.
[Sca 06] Scardamalia, Marlene; Bereiter, Carl (2006): Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and tech-
nology. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 97–115.
[Sie 04] Siemens, George. (2004): Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from:
www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
[Val 12] Valtonen, Teemu; Hacklin, Stina; Dillon, Patrick; Vesisenaho, Mikko; Kukkonen, Jari; Hietanen, Aija (2012): Perspectives on personal learning environments held by vocational students.
Computers & Education, 58(2), 732–739.
[Väl 10] Väljataga, Terje; Laanpere, Mart (2010): Learner control and personal learning environment: a
challenge for instructional design. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(3), 277–291.
[Vee 06] Veen, Wim; Vrakking, Ben (2006): Homo Zappiens: growing up in a digital age. Continuum
International Publishing Group.
[Vyg 78] Vygotsky, Lev (1978): Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[Wil 09] Wilson, Scott, Liber, Oleg; Johnson, Mark; Beauvoir, Phil; Sharples, Paul; Milligan, Colin (2009): Personal Learning Environments: Challenging the dominant design of educational
EbrahimRahimi,JanvandenBerg,WimVeen
fiGurEs
Figure 1 A conceptual framework for developing Web 2.0 PLEs
Figure 2 The proposed model for supporting student control in Web 2.0 PLEs Figure 3 Mapping the learning potential of Web 2.0 into student control model Figure 4 Mapping Bloom’s digital taxonomy into student control model
ContaCt dEtails Ir. Ebrahim Rahimi, M.Sc.
E-Mail: [email protected]
Prof. Dr. Jan van den Berg
E-Mail: [email protected]
Prof. Dr. Wim Veen
E-Mail: [email protected]
Delft University of Technology
The Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, The Netherlands