PLE Vision

1. PLE Vision • Provisioning • Adaptability • Accessibility • Complexity

2. Culture and Administration • Security • Ownership • Branding • QA • Hosting • Future-proofed

3. General • Technology-led • Lowest Common Denominator

4. Reference Model • Wouldn’t allow you to develop software • Inherently ped. biased. • No Learning in it – lacked pedagogy • Agent to Actor

5. Responding • Provide a clear narrative • Roadmap and migration plan – getting there from here • Look at Perspective of both learner and institution • (Compare and) Differentiate VLEs and PLEs • Clarify rel. to ePortfolios PDP etc.

6. PLE Talk around the web • Blackall and Cromier – independent learners • Downes – need for a perfect PIE. • Graham Attwell – Instiutions as ISPs • Siemens – Learning goes Underground • Terry Anderson – evolving LMSs: Syndication • NESTA (personalisation) • David Nicol (formative assessment and developing the self-regulated learner)

10. Elements • domain scope • domain ontology • analysis and theory • software  - used to derive patterns, • topics keywords • agents (actors or roles - learner, tutor, administrator) - • patterns - the patterns are structured according to Alexander (problem, motivation, solution, services, use cases, user category, known uses, category) - • scenarios - high level use cases showing typical uses of a PLE • service descriptions - defining the services referenced by the collected patterns

11. Domain Ontology reference model artifact • process pattern x involves agent y and is known to have been used in software z. The pattern uses service a and service b to solve a problem in the scope of topic c, and satisfies use case 1 and 2 topic process pattern agent service software use case organisation person

12. Scenario Issues PLE is disruptive • existing systems • security • IPR • student skills

13. Scenario Practicalities • Fallback position • Transition between current and future • Provisioning

14. Scenarios • Formal Study • Future (Lifelong) Learner • Independent or Informal Learning

15. 1. Formal Learning • The scenario reflects the current norm, where a student studies for a formal qualification at a single institution. • Variations or extensions to this scenario could include • special requirements of some subjects (law, medicine etc.) where specific ways of demonstrating competencies might exist, • different educational levels (Masters, Doctorate) • The student may or may not possess their own computer and so may need their data and preferences stored centrally, or at least need to sync. • Simple relationship between student and institution – requires negotiation.

16. Scenario Constraints (1) • Learning Episode (course, degree etc.) is a contract between individual and institution Student has • attributes (Educational Level, competency, prior knowledge) • preferences (learning mode and learning style) • constraints (disability, technology, time commitments, preferred tools)

17. Scenario Constraints (2) Institution has • attributes (courses offered, staff, pedagogical approach) • constraints (qa, rules and regulations)

18. Scenario Constraints (3) • Together, they negotiate an instance of learning • The student is then provided with an environment in which to work. Or they may supply the environment themselves, but • both the student and the institution places constraints on this environment. The environment needs to be: • Capable: It needs to have (at least an awareness of) all the tools a learner is likely to use • Usable: It needs to self-assemble, but allow customisation and evolution.

19. Scenario Constraints (4) Initiation: where the environment is (dependent on constraints and attributes): • furnished with tools (communication, calendar, content discovery and creation), • loaded with settings (groups, email addresses, schedules, search tools, prior evidence etc.) • populated with content (from the institution), including workflows. • Customisation (ongoing) where the student • adds in his or her own custom tools, augmenting and possibly replacing existing ones. • Modulates environment as they develop as a learner. • Progression: where the student undertakes a series of negotiated tasks • using (progressing through) and creating resources, • notifying and being notified of events. • communicating with individuals and groups (peers and tutors, experts) • Undertaking assessments • Reflection –where the student • augments their portfolio – this may occur throughout the learning event. • Termination: Where an endpoint is achieved (for instance through accreditation)

20. 2. Future Learner • This alternative to the first case acknowledges the specific needs of a learner who may study with a number of different institutions, either sequentially, or at the same time as anticipated in lifelong learning. • The learner may also have other commitments (e.g. may also work) and there will be greater emphasis on generating evidence through ePortfolio. • The learner would expect to own their own computer (laptop) and use this (almost) exclusively. • Much more complex relationship between student and multiple institutions (and work and groups …)

21. 3. Informal or Independent Learner • This scenario encompasses the typical informal learner, who might have less formal goals and no institution. • They are not registered for a qualification, and therefore have no formal learning relationships (with tutors etc.) They do belong to informal groups but their goals may differ from those of their peers. • Typified by a need for more fluidity, as individual moves between different communities. Environment may be entirely self-assembled. • Researchers and knowledge workers would also utilise this type of environment.

23. Patterns • Recurrent Problems • After Alexander • Problem • Motivation • Solution • User Category • Services • Known uses • Related Patterns • Look at Software

24. Conversation Patterns (managing communication) Team Patterns (managing groups) Temporal Patterns (manage calendaring) Network Patterns (managing syncing) Resource Patterns Context Patterns (managing instances) Social Patterns (aka People Patterns – managing relationships) Workflow Patterns Activity Patterns (managing learning: LADIE) Assessment Patterns (FREMA) Other Patterns (at different level cf ped. patterns LMS Patterns) Pattern Categories

25. Flock Mozilla/XUL) 43Things Flickr Furl Technorati del.icio.us Groove WiredReach ELGG Outlook Chandler Colloquia AppleMail Eudora Thunderbird Blogger Drupal Wordpress XJournal NetVibes SuprGlu iCal Sunbird eyeOS SynchroEdit Writely Writeboard BaseCamp TaDaList AOLInstantMessenger iChat MSNMessenger Google Amazon Software Shrook NetNewsWire

27. Graphical Avatar (aka Buddy Icon) This is one of the Patterns of the PLE Reference Model Problem How can a learner easily recognise another learner, even when they appear in multiple contexts? Motivation When a learner communicates using various media, such as email and instant messaging, it often is unclear to the recipient that they are in fact the same person, as very often the handles associated with different media are not the same for the same person. Solution Use a single Graphical Avatar to visually represent the learner to enable their rapid recognition. The "gravatar" should be the same even if the person it represents is using different account details (for example, an email account or an IM account). User Category Learner Services Known Uses The most well known use is the "Buddy Icon" found in AOLInstantMessenger, but many other systems make use of graphical avatars, such as Colloquia. Related Patterns Sample Pattern

28. Some Patterns

29. Services: eLearning Framework

30. Service allows a PLE user to publish activities, join activities others have created, contribute resources for activities access resources for activities. Broker for Workflow service Activity Management Service

31. Workflow Pattern: Conversation for Action