Structuration of Personal Learning Environments
8 likes2,748 views
Dr. Marco Kalz, an assistant professor at the Open University of the Netherlands, discusses the concept of Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) and their structural framework, highlighting criticisms of Learning Management Systems (LMS). The document explores the relationship between technology and learning, emphasizing the need for empirical research on PLEs and the challenges in operationalizing such studies. Key topics include the integration of resources, learner autonomy, and the contextual factors influencing PLE usage.
![Perspective a.) Technology as a product
„Designers incorporate some of these structures into the
technology; the structures may be reproduced so as to mimic
their nontechnology counterparts, or they may be modified,
enhanced, or combined with manual procedures, thus
creating new structures within the technology. Once
complete, the technology presents an array of social
structures for possible use in interpersonal interaction,
including rules […] and resources” (DeSanctis/Poole 1994, S.
125).](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/mupple-kmi-mkalz-2011-pub-110716073053-phpapp01/85/Structuration-of-Personal-Learning-Environments-29-320.jpg)
Structuration of Personal Learning Environments
- 1. Structura'on of Personal Learning Environments Dr. Marco Kalz Open University of the Netherlands
- 2. Marco Kalz • Assistant Professor at the Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies (CELSTEC) of the Open University of the Netherlands (OUNL) • In 2001 he worked as a consultant in one of the first professional content syndica'on companies in Europe. • From 2002 ‐ 2003 he was involved in one of Germany’s mobile campus ini'a'ves where he was researching the educaLonal potenLal of mobile devices in tradiLonal teaching formats. • From 2004 ‐ 2006 he worked in EducaLonal Technology group at Fernuniversität in Hagen, Germany’s distance teaching university, where hew was involved in the concepLon of two new study programs for educaLonal technology. • Since February 2006 Marco works at OUNL with a research focus on new forms of assessment and the use of social soDware and social media for lifelong competence development.
- 3. Dr. Marco Kalz Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies Open University of the Netherlands marco.kalz@ou.nl http://twitter.com/mkalz
- 4. Structure of this talk • PLE as empowerment concept • Structurational view of PLE • Operationalization of the theory • Research challenges
- 5. Criticisms of the LMS
- 6. Criticisms of the LMS Schneider, 2003
- 7. Criticisms of the LMS • Administrative Functions • Controlled Cohorts • Teacher with all rights • Prepared courses • Learners consume • Limited communication • No design freedom • Instruction Schneider, 2003
- 8. Criticism of the LMS
- 11. Early PLE concepts ! Werdmuller 2004
- 13. Early PLE concepts ! Wilson 2005
- 14. Turner 2008
- 15. A working definition “Personal Learning Environments are learning environments where learners can integrate distributed information, resources and contacts and reflect about learning progress and learning products based on standards and interfaces”. Schaffert/Kalz 2010
- 16. PLE vs. the rest
- 17. The proceedings
- 18. Some statistics Case studies Theoretical/Technical papers Empirical papers 3 30 3 36 papers
- 19. A critical look
- 20. Problems for empirical PLE studies • Complex relationship between technology, learners and learning effects • How to avoid a technology-deterministic view? • PLE framework vs. PLE instantiation • Data collection • Comparability • End-users?
- 21. A conversation
- 22. A conversation
- 24. Structuration Theory Rose, 2001
- 26. Adaptive Structuration Theory „Technology properties and contextual contingencies can play critical roles in the outcomes of advanced information technology use. The difficulty is that there are no clearcut patterns indicating that some technology properties are contingencies consistently lead to either positive or negative outcomes” (DeSanctis & Poole 1994, S. 124).
- 27. A structurational perspective of technology use ! Orlikowski & Robey, 1991
- 28. Theoretical foundation • Structuration theory
- 29. Perspective a.) Technology as a product „Designers incorporate some of these structures into the technology; the structures may be reproduced so as to mimic their nontechnology counterparts, or they may be modified, enhanced, or combined with manual procedures, thus creating new structures within the technology. Once complete, the technology presents an array of social structures for possible use in interpersonal interaction, including rules […] and resources” (DeSanctis/Poole 1994, S. 125).
- 30. Perspective a.) PLE frameworks http://taolin.fbk.eu
- 31. Perspective a.) PLE frameworks http://taolin.fbk.eu
- 32. Perspective a.) Artefact vs. use Orlikowski & Robey, 1991
- 33. Perspective b.) PLE as a medium for human action
- 34. Perspective b.) Facilities • Why do PLE users choose specific functionalities and not others? • How do learners integrate these facilities with other facilities? • How stable are facilities over the time?
- 35. Perspective b.) Norms • Which normative framing influences the structuration process? • Do norms that learner know from other learning experiences (e.g. the authority of an expert) get re- assured or changed? • Which social norms emerge especially when we look at a network of PLE in which learners self-organize their learning support via the integration of social networks etc.?
- 36. Perspective b.) Interpretative schemes • What are assumptions & expectations of PLE users? • Which prior experiences do they have with PLE or other learning technology? • Which implicit, tacit & explicit knowledge do they apply?
- 37. Perspective c.) Institutional context of usage University of the Basque Country/Casquero 2008
- 38. Perspective c.) Institutional context of usage
- 39. Perspective d.) Consequences of PLE usage • What are the (unintended) consequences of using a PLE? • How does the attitude towards institutional learning platforms change when universities offer PLE platforms? • Which events have lead to new learning goals and opportunities?
- 40. Operationalizing structurational PLE studies Process data
- 41. Langley, 1999
- 42. Operationalizing structurational PLE studies Pozzebon & Pinsonneault, 2001
- 43. Operationalizing structurational PLE studies Pozzebon & Pinsonneault, 2001
- 44. Research challenges • The competent actor • Which effects are we analyzing (macro-level of learning or micro-level)? • Generalizability problems • Reinforcment of structures vs. transformation • Which methods for process data? • Interrelations between widgets
- 46. PLE
- 47. PLE Research
- 48. PLE Research Structuration Theory
- 49. PLE Research Structuration Theory Structuration Theory & IT
- 50. PLE Research Structuration Theory Structuration Theory & IT Analysis relations
- 51. PLE Research Structuration Theory Structuration Theory & IT Analysis relations Methods
- 52. PLE Research Structuration Theory Structuration Theory & IT Analysis relations Methods Challenges
- 53. PLE Empirical PLE Research studies Structuration Theory Structuration Theory & IT Analysis relations Methods Challenges
- 54. Thank you for your attention Dr. Marco Kalz marco.kalz@ou.nl http://twitter.com/mkalz http://www.marcokalz.de http://celstec.org
Editor's Notes
- #2: \n
- #3: \n
- #4: \n
- #5: \n
- #6: \n
- #7: \n
- #8: \n
- #9: \n
- #10: \n
- #11: \n
- #12: \n
- #13: \n
- #14: \n
- #15: \n
- #16: \n
- #17: \n
- #18: \n
- #19: \n
- #20: \n
- #21: \n
- #22: \n
- #23: \n
- #24: \n
- #25: \n
- #26: \n
- #27: \n
- #28: \n
- #29: \n
- #30: \n
- #31: \n
- #32: \n
- #33: \n
- #34: \n
- #35: \n
- #36: \n
- #37: \n
- #38: \n
- #39: \n
- #40: \n
- #41: \n
- #42: \n
- #43: \n
- #44: \n
- #45: \n
- #46: \n
- #47: \n
- #48: \n
- #49: \n
- #50: \n
- #51: \n
- #52: \n