针灸 淄博 哪里好:The Wales-Wide Web | Personal Learning Environments

Personal Learning Environments

Next week there is a meeting on Personal Learning Environments inManchester. We have been invited to put forward a 'Position Paper'.Here is mine. It was intended to be much, much shorter, buts somehowgrew when I was writing it. As always I would love any feedback

Introduction

There is a buzz at events bringing together educationaltechnologists. That buzz is called Personal Learning Environments. Yet,a year and a half after serious discussion broke out in theedu-blogosphere, there is little agreement on what a Personal LearningEnvironment is, still less on what it might mean if translated to alearning application. Neither is there agreement on who it is for orwho might own or use it. Does it replace VLEs or is it a plug in oradditional application? Is it any different to an extended e-Portfolio?There is not even agreement as to whether a PLE should be anapplication or if it is just a collection of user-configured tools.

This paper will not answer all those questions. Instead itseeks to explain why the idea of the PLE is so appealing and what arethe social and educational ideas which underpin the concept of the PLE.Secondly it will look at some of the issues that need to be resolved ina little more detail. Thirdly it will suggest some of the principleswhich should underpin PLE development and implementation and finallysuggest what further developmental activities might be undertaken.

The paper will attempt to blend the educational or learningissues and the more technical issues. Educational technology should beshaped by the users, rather than shape or inhibit learning. Yet eventhis raises issues. Is the PLE just what it says? A personal learningenvironment belonging solely to the learner, or should the educationsystem and educational institutions also have a say in the shaping ofthese tools?

Technorati Tags: e-portfolios, Personal Learning Environments, social software

Extended text for this entry:

Why a Personal Learning Environment and why now?

This section of the paper will look at the different pressures andmovements which underpin the idea of a Personal Learning Environment.The first of these is the move towards lifelong learning.

Lifelong Learning

Lifelong learning is hardly a new idea. Arguably, the idea oflifelong learning was originally rooted in the workers movement. In theUK, the Mechanics Institutes, the Miners Halls and organisations likethe Workers Educational Association organised the classes and coursesfor workers to improve their own education as well as providing accessto learning resources and social activities. Whilst this provisionmight aim at developing technical and labour market related skills andknowledge, it was guided by a wider belief in the power of educationfor emancipation. The more recent focus on life long learning, in saythe last thirty years, has been guided by a far narrower discourses.Driven by a shorter product life cycle, the increasing speed ofadoption and implementation of new technologies in the workplace andthe increasing instability of employment with the computer drivenindustrial revolution, it was reasoned that workers would needcontinuous learning throughout their work-life to update theiroccupational skills and knowledge or to learn new occupationalcompetences. It was contestable as to who would be responsible forthis. Whilst previously continuing vocational training had been theresponsibility of employers, and the state was seen as playing aleading role in the provision of continuing education and training, itwas now often argued that individuals were responsible for maintainingtheir own employability, albeit sometimes with the assistance ofgrants, vouchers and subsidised courses,

If not continuous, learning is now seen as multi episodic, withindividuals spending occasional periods of formal education andtraining throughout their working life.

The idea of a Personal Learning Environment recognises that learningis continuing and seeks to provide tools to support that learning. Italso recognises the role of the individual in organising their ownlearning. Moreover, the pressures for a PLE are based on the idea thatlearning will take place in different contexts and situations and willnot be provided by a single learning provider. Linked to this is anincreasing recognition of the importance of informal learning.

Informal Learning

Informal learning is something of a conundrum. Fairly obviously, welearn throughout our lives, in all kinds of different setting andcontexts. Most of this learning does not come form formal educationalprogrammes. Jay Cross (2006) argues that only 10 -15 per cent oflearning is formal, that 85 per cent of our learning takes placeoutside of formal settings. Yet there has been little attention paid toinformal learning or to how it takes place (see below for moreconsideration of this).

In most European countries there has been some moves to recogniseinform learning. However, most effort has been expended on trying toassess and certify informal learning, (Whether it then remains informalis a moot point, as is whether most people wish their informal learningto be certified).

There has been interest in informal learning from the corporateworld, driven by the desire to capitalise on the intellectual assets ofthe workforce, to manage organisational knowledge and in recognitionthat informal learning may prove a cost effective way of developingcompetence.

In terms of educational technology, there has been little attentionpaid to informal learning. It is remarkable that formal learningtechnology and applications have only really been made available tothose enrolled on an educational programme or to those working forlarger enterprises.

The promise of Personal Learning Environments could be to extendaccess to educational technology to everyone who wishes to organisetheir own learning. Furthermore the idea of the PLE purports to includeand bring together all learning, including informal learning, workplacelearning, learning from the home, learning driven by problem solvingand learning motivated by personal interest as well as learning throughengagement in formal educational programmes.

Personal Learning Environments could also facilitate different styles of learning.

Different styles of Learning

It is argued that we all have different styles of learning andapproach learning in different ways. Although this would seemself-evident, attempts to theorise and classify such learning stylesare less than convincing.. Personally, I do not think I have oneparticular learning style but use different learning styles anddifferent 'intelligences'in different contexts, different subjects and in different knowledge -domains and in response to different learning aims and goals. I mightuse a different style for solving a quick problem - say how to useSkype for my podcast, - than for learning German.

Not withstanding the problems of the the theoretical debate onlearning styles, it would appear likely that learners will havepreferences for different pedagogic approaches, in particular learningcontexts.

All educational software, implicitly or otherwise, either enhancesor restrains certain pedagogic approaches to learning. There is no suchthing as pedagogically neutral software. A Personal LearningEnvironment could allow a leaner to configure and develop a learningenvironment to suit and enable their own style of learning.

New approaches to assessment and the recognition of learning

An important development in education in the past period has beenthe translation of qualifications into outcomes and competences. It isbeyond the scope of this paper to explore the full implications ofthese developments or to go into the discussion over what exactlycompetence is. From the point of view of the PLE, the importance liesin the separation of the outcomes which form a qualification from thelearning programme which develops competence for such outcomes. Thismeans that learners are no longer necessarily locked in to a particularcourse in order to gain a qualification but are able to present theirlearning to prove they possess such competencies or are able to achievethose outcomes. This means that learners could select evidence andartefacts from the PLE for presentation for qualification purposes.

It is also important to note that formal qualifications areincreasingly only seen as one aspect of competence, at least foremployment purposes. Employers also increasingly wish to see evidenceof the ability to apply skills and knowledge in a particular context.PLEs could facilitate such presentations, in an extended form of ane-Portfolio and through links to an e-Portfolio.

Changing technologies

In this section I will look at two developments in technology whichI think are of particular significance for the development of PersonalLearning Environments - ubiquitous computing and the development ofsocial software.

Ubiquitous computing

The term ubiquitous computing refers to two technologicaldevelopments. The first is the growing ubiquitous nature of internetconnectivity with the development of wireless and GSM networks, as wellas the spread of broadband, resulting in connectivity becomingavailable almost everywhere in the future. It is also expected thatdevices will be able to search for and seamlessly switch to utiliseavailable networks. The second and associated use of the term is forthe many different devices now able to access the internet, includingmobile communication devices such as PDAs but also household appliancesand industrial and electronic tools and machinery.

The development of ubiquitous computing may offer new opportunities for the use of ICT for learning.

Previously occupational and vocational learning has been dividedbetween the theory and knowledge base to be acquired in trainingschools and the practice which often takes place in the workplace. Withthe use of mobile devices and the spread of connectivity it is at leasttheoretically possible to bring this learning together and to accesstheory and knowledge in the context in which it is to be applied - inthe work process.

Secondly - and possibly more important from a didactical point ofview - is the embedding of computer based communication within thetools of the workplace. This offers the opportunity to develop learningenvironments whilst simultaneously accessing and shaping the productionand business process through such interfaces.

In other words the context in which learning takes place becomes thecontext in which the learning is to be applied and the nature of thelearning interface - or the learning materials become the occupationaltools with which the (work process) knowledge is carried out.

Whilst ubiquitous computing is not yet fully developed, there are anumber of pilot activities with the use of mobile devices and with newinterfaces to learning and working.

Key to an understanding of the potential of such devices is the ideaof being able both to shape the work process through the application ofoccupational knowledge whilst shaping the learning process throughcarrying out work processes.

It also facilitates participation in dispersed communities ofpractice and collaboration between different enterprises in providingtraining (although arguably such opportunities already exist withoutubiquitous computing).

PLEs can develop this potential by facilitating access to learningin different contexts and using different devices and interfaces.Secondly PLEs can bring together learning acquired in differentcontexts.

Social software and Web 2

Social software is used here in the meaning of software that letspeople rendezvous, connect or collaborate by use of a computer network.It supports networks of people, content and services that are moreadaptable and responsive to changing needs and goals. Social Softwareadapts to its environment, instead of requiring its environment toadapt to software. In this way social software is seen as overcoming

the absurd distinction between e-learning and knowledge management software.

Social software underpins what is loosely referred to as Web 2. WhereasWeb 1 was largely implemented as a push technology - to allow access toinformation on a dispersed basis, Web 2 is a two way process, allowingthe internet to be used for creating and sharing information andknowledge, rather than merely accessing external artefacts.

Social software is increasingly being used in education and trainingthrough such applications as web logs, wikis, tools and applicationsfor creating and sharing multi media and tools for sharing all kinds ofdifferent personal knowledge bases including bookmarks and bookcollections.

In software terms, rather than monolithic vendor driven and designedapplications, Web 2 and social software is based on the idea of 'small pieces, loosely connected' utilising commonly recognised standards and web services for linking ideas, knowledge and artefacts.

Social software offers the opportunity for narrowing the divide betweenproducers and consumers. Consumers become themselves producers, throughcreating and sharing. One implication is the potential for a newecology of open content, books, learning materials and multi media,through learners themselves becoming producers of learning materials.

Social software has already led to widespread adoption of portfoliosfor learners bringing together learning from different contexts ansources of learning and providing an on-going record of lifelonglearning, capable of expression in different forms.

The idea of the Personal Learning environment is in effect a Web 2,social software concept. Although we still are unsure of what exactly aPLE is, there would appear to be a common understanding that PLEsprovide tools and functionality for creating knowledge, as well asconsuming it. Furthermore, there seems to be a common agreement that aPLE will facilitate connections between people and between differentsoftware applications.

How we use computers for learning

Whilst changes in the education systems and new developments intechnology may pave the way for the PLE, the most compelling driver maybe the changing ways learners (young people in particular but by nomeans just young people) are using computers for learning. This sectionis largely based on an empirical study of informal learning in Smalland Medium Enterprises.

John Seely Brown in a speech in 1999, looked at the new dimensions of

learning, working and playing in the digital age.

One dimension he drew attention to was literacy and how it isevolving. The new literacy, the one beyond text and knowledge, he said,is one of information navigation.

Linked to this was learning and how that is shifting. He pointed tothe growth of discovery or experiential learning. As kids work in thenew digital media, he said, rather than abstract logic, they deployBricolage. Bricolage relates to the concrete and has to do with theability to find something - an object or a tool, a piece of code, adocument - and to use it in a new way and in a new context. But to be asuccessful bricoleur of the virtual rather than the physical you haveto be able to decide whether or not to trust or believe these things.Therefore the need for making judgements is greater than ever before.

Navigation is being coupled to discovery and discovery being coupledto bricolage but you do not dare build on whatever you discover unlessyou can make a judgement concerning its quality or trustworthiness.

The final dimension Seely Brown addressed was that of action. Hesuggests new forms of learning are based on trying things and action,rather than on more abstract knowledge.

Learning becomes as much social as cognitive, as muchconcrete as abstract, and becomes intertwined with judgement andexploration.

Seely Brown's early study has been reinforced by more recent researchby Pew Research (2005). The study found that 56 per cent of youngpeople in America were using computers for creative activities, writingand posting of the internet, mixing and constructing multimedia anddeveloping their own content. 12 to 17-year-olds look to web tools toshare what they think and do online. One in five who use the net saidthey used other people's images, audio or text to help make their owncreations. According to Lee Raine, author of the study,

These teens were born into a digital world where theyexpect to be able to create, consume, remix, and share material witheach other and lots of strangers.

Of course there is almost certainly a generation gap in the waycomputers are used for learning. But a seven country study of the useof ICT for learning in Small and Medium Enterprises found a number ofsurprising results

There was little use of ICT for formal learning in the SMEs (in factthere was little formal learning taking place at all). In contrast tothe paucity of formal learning provision in the SMEs studied, there wasa great deal of informal learning taking place. From the study mostinformal learning appeared be learner driven, rather than planned inconjunction with others in the enterprise, and was problem motivated,although some learners were motivated by their own interest rather thanin response to any specific problem. In many cases ICT was being usedas part of this informal learning. The main means of ICT based learningwas Google key word searches. Managers were often unaware of thislearning, although they were frequently aware of the problem whichinspired it.

There were considerable differences in the use of ICT for informallearning between different enterprises. It would be tempting to ascribethese differences to age, sector, size or occupation but it is hard todiscern such causal factors from the case studies undertaken.

None of the employees in the enterprises studied had attempted toclaim recognition or accreditation for the skills and knowledge gainedthrough informal learning. It is not clear if this is because they arenot interested in pursuing further formal qualifications or if it isbecause they are unaware of any opportunities of claiming accreditationfor informal learning.

The use of the Google search engine as the major tool for learningis interesting. It raises the question of how people are framing theirsearch terms, how they are refining search strings, how they areselecting from the results of search queries and how they are followinghyperlinked texts. For a search result to be useful it needs to bothproduce materials, ideas and concepts which can connect with thelearner's existing knowledge base of the one hand and approach theissue or problem being addressed on the other. The ideas of legitimateperipheral participation and proximinal development may be helpful forexplaining this process and of understanding how people are makingsense of knowledge.

Lave and Wenger (1991) propose that the initial participation in aculture of practice can be observation from the periphery or legitimateperipheral participation. The participant moves from the role ofobserver, as learning and observation in the culture increase, to afully functioning member. The progressive movement towards fullparticipation enables the learner to piece together the culture of thegroup and establish their identity.

Knowing is inherent in the growth and transformation ofidentities and it is located in relations among practitioners, theirpractice, the artefacts of that practice, and the social organization…of communities of practice.

Especially in micro enterprises, SME employees have tended to beisolated from communities of practice. This may be a greater barrier tolearning than the lack of time to attend training courses. One of themost powerful uses of ICT for learning in SMEs is the ability toconnect to distributed communities of practice. There has been muchcomment on the phenomenon of 'lurkers'on discussion sites, lists servers and bulletin board. Lurking is verymuch a process of legitimate peripheral participation. Watching,listening and trying to make sense of a series of posts and discussionswithout being forced to reveal oneself or to actively participateallows the development of knowledge 'about knowledge' within a community and about the practices of the on-line community.

Similar to the idea of legitimate peripheral participation is Vygotsky's (1990) "Zone of Proximinal Development".This theoretical construct states that learning occurs best when anexpert guides a novice from the novice's current level of knowledge tothe expert's level of knowledge. Bridging the zone of proximinaldevelopment construct with legitimate peripheral participationconstruct may be accomplished if one thinks of a zone in which theexpert or mentor takes the learner from the peripheral status ofknowing to a deeper status. This may be accomplished with or withoutintention as Lave and Wegner (1991) state:

Legitimate peripheral participation is not itself aneducational form, much less a pedagogical strategy or a teachingtechnique. It is an analytic viewpoint on learning, a way ofunderstanding learning. We hope to make it clear that learning throughlegitimate peripheral participation takes place no matter whicheducational form provides a context for learning, or whether there isany intentional educational form at all. Indeed, this viewpoint makes afundamental distinction between learning and intentional instruction

However, the expert scaffolds the environment to the extent in whichthe learner is engaged with the discourse and participants within thezone and is drawn from a peripheral status to a more engaged status.The peripheral learner interacts with the mentor, expert learners andpeers within this zone. More able learners (peers) or the mentor willwork with the less able learner potentially allowing for sociallyconstructed knowledge.

Within the SMEs studies there were few instances of mentoring orcontinuous contact with an expert. The use of ICT was allowingdistributed access to expertise - albeit mediated through bulletinboards, forums and web pages. This leaves open the question as to theprocess of scaffolding which essentially becomes an internalisedprocess. However the process of less able learners working with moreable peers is a common process in seeking new knowledge through the useof ICT.

Essentially workers are using search engines to seek out potentialforums and contexts for learning. Selection depends on closeness ofinterest and the level of discourse in the community. There is littlepoint in following a discourse of too low a level, of knowledge alreadygained, neither is their an attraction to a discourse clearly on anlevel which cannot be understood. Learners wills eek a community withknowledge at a higher level than their own but which can connect withtheir prior learning, learning and practice. Typically they will lurkin order to understand the workings of the community and to gain somebasic knowledge. After a period of time they might contribute in theform of a question and later again might themselves contribute to thehared knowledge pool. In this ways they move from the periphery throughlurking to full bound participants in a community. It should be notedthat communities are frequently overlapping and that the use ofhyper-links and more recently standards like track-back allow thecommunities to be dynamic with the emergence of new groups anddiscourses.

This study is important not only in showing how people are usingcomputers for learning but in their use of learning materials. Few ofthose we surveyed used formal learning materials. they were usingmaterials they found on the web for learning. In education, we havetended to focus on the development of formal learning materials andhave ignored the vast potential of freely available 'objects' of all kinds (not formal learning objects!) freely available for learning purposes.

What about educational technology?

Despite the widespread and increasing use of computers for informallearning and for communicating, creating and sharing, educationaltechnology remain less than compelling. Compare the vibrancy of many ofthe web spaces targeted at young people and the massive take up of MySpace, compared to the lack of discourse on many institutional VLEs.

Of course it could be said that the evidence I have cited is forinformal learning and that formal education is different. Learning canbe hard and may not be fun. Different processes and technologies areneeded for engagement with a formal body of knowledge and fornavigating a formal curriculum. It might also be argued that differentforms of educational technology are required if there is the presenceof a skilled teacher or facilitator. A further argument is that thelearning processes I have described are based on voluntary learning andrely on a high level of self motivation. What about those learners wholack high levels of self motivation and are unaccustomed to managingtheir own learning?

There is a degree of truth in this. But I am unconvinced that ourpresent educational technology, based essentially on managing learning,rather than encouraging creativity, provides any better motivation forlearners.

In a paper shortly to be published in Germany (Attwell, forthcoming), I argue that the lack of innovation and the limited didacticapproaches to learning using computers within the educational system isperhaps not surprising. The development and adoption of e-learning hasnot taken place in an ideological vacuum; the forms and uses oftechnologies are shaped by political and social processes. If learningis a social process (Guile and Young, 1997), then any consideration ofthe development and impact of e-learning and e-learning technologiesneeds to examine the wider social, economic and cultural processes anddiscourses involved in the development and implementation of newtechnologies in education.

Three dominant policy discourses in education have shaped thedevelopment and implementation of e-learning: commodification,privatisation and a restricted discourse of lifelong learning, which inturn are based on broader discourses around globalisation and theprivatisation of knowledge.

Such dominant discourses have tended towards limiting the impact ofICT within the mainstream education and training systems and of holdingback the development of new didactic and pedagogic approaches withinformal learning.

The danger is that the education system will become irrelevant tomany peoples learning needs. It will be seen as an imposition. Youngpeople will turn to social spaces for communication and developingideas. Access to quality learning provision for adults will bedependent on companies and private training providers.

The most compelling argument for the PLE is to develop educationaltechnology which can respond to the way people are using technology forlearning and which allows them to themselves shape their own learningspaces, to form and join communities and to create, consume, remix, andshare material.

What might a PLE look like?

In this section of the paper I will put forward some ideas of what aPLE might look like. Inevitably this will raise a number of issues,most of which are rooted in a tension between the institutionalmanagement and control and the idea of a truly personal learningenvironment.

Do we need a PLE application?

First though, I wish to briefly comment on the issue of whether weneed a PLE application at all. It can be argued that most of thefeatures of a PLE can be supported by existing desktop applications andsocial software. The list below is of the software I use for mypersonal learning environment (in a later version of this paper I willprovide this in diagrammatic form).

• Word processor for writing papers like this - Nisus Writer Express
• E-mail client for communication - Mac Mail
• Diary for managing my work and sharing with others- iCal linked to my web site
• Audio for making podcasts - Garage Band
• Video editor for making multi media presentations - iMovie
• Weblog client for various blogs I contribute to - Ecto
• Content Management System for creating web sites - Jumbla
• Personal Weblog - Knotes
• Photo editing programme - iPhoto (and plug in for uploading to Flickyr)
• Photo sharing service - Flickyr
• Web Browser - Firefox
• Bookmark sharing service - Delicio-us
• Podcast publishing - Jumbla plug in
• Presentation software - Keynote
• Newsreader - Net Newsreader
• Instant messaging and VOIP - Skype
• Search engines - mainly Spotlight and Google
• FTP client for sharing multimedia files - FileChute

And a number of other applications for creating and editing graphics. Anumber of other services from different social software companies. And,of course, the operating system itself for managing and storing files.This is a lot of software. Apple has become increasingly good atallowing services between the different applications, but it can be alittle unpredictable what will work with what.

This is a powerful personal learning environment. But, all thissoftware takes a lot of setting up, configuring and maintenance. At thepresent time, it is probably beyond the average learner (or teacher).The argument for a Personal Learning Environment application is toprovide easy access to a range of services, applications andfunctionality for learners. There is a danger that we create a new formof the walled garden. If the PLE is to be developed as an application.,it needs to be easily configured to allow the use of personal tools andapplications instead of the default settings.

Who provides services?

A second major issue is who provides services. In the example of mypersonal learning environment, I use a mixture of desktop applicationsand external web spaces, applications and services. There is a majorissue as to who is controlling and storing data and the reliability ofthose services. Of course, services could be provided by individualeducational institutions. But that would exclude access to those notcurrently enrolled on a formal learning programme. Furthermore, itwould create problems if a leaner was accessing programmes in more thanone institution although adherence to standards would reduce thatproblem. But what happens when someone completes their course andleaves the institution. This is already an issue with regard toe-Portfolios. At least one UK university is already consideringoffering maintenance of e-Portfolios as a commercial alumni service. Iam unconvinced that the scenario of educational institutions competingto sell technology services is desirable. Better would be the creationof a national (networked) service offering everyone access to PersonalLearning Environment services, regardless of whether they are presentlyparticipating in an educational course. Helen Barret has argued that weshould provide everyone with their own personnel web space to encouragecreativity and learning. There is a danger that such a space would bespurned by young people seeing it as an extension of the educationsystem. The attraction of MySpace is in the lack of prescription ofwhat a user may do. PLE services would need to be as permissive inallowing learners to use services in the way they wish.

Other issues and features

The remaining list of features and issues are a mixture of technicalconsiderations and issues related to learning. Some relate to theissues raised above.

On and off line

An e-portfolio should work on and off-line. Despite my earlierremarks on ubiquitous computers, connectivity is still variable (I haveno connection at home myself at the moment due to an argument with myInternet Service Provider). More importantly, PLEs should be usable inwork contexts and when travelling, both situations where connectivitycannot be provided and in countries and regions lacking high speedinternet connections.

Multiple Devices

PLEs should interact and connect with multiple digital devices.Ideally there should be different versions of the application for useon advanced phones and handheld devices.

Powerful Permissions

A PLE should be personal. This means the suer should have finegrained control over what and when they wish to share with other usersand with whom. This should include the ability to develop ad hocgroups.

Although rich personal profiles are very useful in makingconnections between people, many users may be reluctant to revealpersonal data. Therefore the data required by the application / systemprofile should be kept to a minimum.

Multiple Sources of Learning

The PLE must recognise that learning takes place in different andmultiple contexts and situations. Furthermore, learners may accessformal learning materials or may use other materials available on theweb. the PLE should allow learners to bring together collections oflearning materials from different sources.

Powerful searching

Searching and lurking lay at the heart of the way people are usingICT for learning. The PLE should incorporate not only access to searchengines but the ability to classify and store searches and bookmarks.

Easy updating

Clearly any PLE application will be a perpetual beta. Therefore, it is important that updating to new versions is very simple.

Easy to install and maintain

If the PLE does include server end software, it is important thatthis should be easy to install and maintain. PLE software should beaccessible to small institutions and even workplaces with limited ICTsupport personnel. The ease of install and maintenance is one of thereasons for the success of Moodle.

Ease of use and extendable functionality

This has two meanings. the first is the importance of a cleaninterface and ease of use for novices. At the same time the PLE shouldbe easily extended for advanced functionality. this may meaninterfacing desktop and service applications.

Permit multiple presentations

The PLE should assist the leaner in presenting the learning indifferent ways for different purposes. This could include developing ae-Portfolio. It could just mean pulling together parts of the learningfor an essay or presentation.

Interoperability and standards

It almost goes without saying that the PLE should supportinteroperability and standards., But this is easier said than done. Itis probably more important to adopt lightweight and widely usedstandards, than some of the more obtuse and heavyweight educationalstandards.

Support the learner in scaffolding and planning learning

It would seem to be helpful if a PLE could assist learners inplanning and sequencing their own learning. I do not know how thiscould be done. The present way I 'store'my learning is through a personal folder and file structure base on mycomputers operating system but I have always felt there must be abetter way of doing this than in the traditional folder structure. Theneed is to allow learners to easily and intuitively link differentthings together and to develop maps of those links in a dynamic way -perhaps building on the way 'smart searching' applications operate.

A PLE should also allow people to add their own metadata and to share that metadata, possibly through some form of 'negotiated'folksonomies. It could also allow users to add their own metadata toobjects they have used, thus allowing the development of a trail ofdistributed metadata.

Next Steps

What should be the next steps in exploring the development of Personal Learning Environments?

Firstly there are some prototype PLE-like applications already inbeing piloted. Besides the JISV funded Plex application, the ELGGPersonal Learning Landscape supports many of the functions of a PLE andhas a growing installation base in many parts of the world. No doubtother such applications could be identified.

But perhaps more important is the increasing use of social software- including blogs, wikis and bookmarking applications for learning,both within the education system and within enterprises and publicservices. One thing is certain - there can be no such thing as thePersonal Learning Environment. It is better to envisage a family ofdifferent applications and services which support the conception ofsuch of the PLE.

The use of these applications can provide a fertile research environment for exploring further the development of PLEs.

Such research should include approaches to learning and knowledge and technical development. It might include:

• examining in depth how individuals are using computers for learning in different settings (especially non-educational technology) and outside the setting of formal educational programmes;
• exploring the relationship between informal learning and formal learning in developing competence;
• examining different forms of competence and how educational technology can support such competences;
• examining the use of different social software applications for learning;
• examining in depth the nature and form of computer mediated interactions between learners in different communities;
• examining the implications of persistence of data for Personal Learning Environments;
• examining the different ways in which learners might wish to represent learning (both formal and informal);
• examining what materials are used for informal learning and how they are used;
• 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;
• exploring how PLE-type applications and services can be integrated or work alongside existing educational applications and services

None of this precludes or replaces the development and piloting of newand creative learning applications which might be seen as a PLE. Butsuch development needs to take place alongside pedagogic and socialresearch and development. Otherwise we are in danger of once moredriving down a blind alley.