Jon Dron (2002) argued for a learning environment without a tutor, but with technology in the form of an intelligent tutoring system to mimic and replace the teacher roles. p. 2

Worldwide, several research projects are in progress developing and researching PLEs (Downes 2009a, van Harmelen, 2009; Attwell, 2009 - PLEs). p. 2

The logical next step was the development of a learning environment controlled by the learner, where a variety of Web2.0 applications would support social interaction and could be managed by the individual. It was imagined that it would provide a pedagogical framework and support learning through these applications and through semantic web structures, where technology itself could aggregate information in a meaningful way to the learner. p. 2

This research paper will analyse what is required to create a PLE that fosters meaningful learning experiences. It will discuss the learning theories behind such an environment, a model of PLE based learning, and how educational challenges in a learning environment without a tutor, such as a lack of learner autonomy and skills required to thrive in a PLE, can be approached. Finally it will highlight several factors that influence the quality of the learning experience and subsequently of the learning outcomes. p. 2

Learning theories behind the Personal Learning Environment p. 2

Each learner is unique and will have unique learning experiences. p. 2

Current views of learning propose that knowledge is no longer traditional knowledge transmitted from tutor to student. People create knowledge themselves, for example out of experiences in their lives, together with earlier acquired knowledge and while engaging in social interaction. p. 2

Knowledge is no longer transferred, but created or constructed, or developed through active participation in collaborative learning activities, rather than passively received from the teacher. p. 2

Most learning experiences are based on six components, although researchers disagree on the emphasis put on the components: gathering of information, social interaction, activity, reflection, conceptualization and repurposing of information (Downes 2006, Kop 2006, Mason 2006, Mayes, 2002). p. 3

A personal profiler that supports the learner at different stages of this learning cycle could store personal information about the user as part of the PLE and supports the learner to find information by suggesting and rating particular information, tools and applications. Information will be accumulated by the learner and fed into the learning cycle at several stages. This could be at the planning stage, the repurposing or conceptualizing stage, or it could be while sharing and collaborating or while receiving feedback from others, depending on the learner’s requirements. p. 3

Editing and publishing tools will also be important for learners p. 3

A Personal Development Planning tool, an ePortfolio-like application, would also be required for focused aggregation of digital items p. 3

opportunity to reflect on their personal development p. 3

It is meant to support meta-cognition and the organizing, planning and recording stages of the learning model. A learner advisor service could be used to support the learning cycle as it would have the role of challenging the learner through feedback by others on his or her learning activities, a ‘peer-assessment tool’. Feedback from others on the learning project will stimulate reflection and thinking about the learning process. p. 3

Another service that would be useful for learners would be one suggesting helper applications that indirectly support the learning model by providing applications and links, such as connections to LMS systems, chat tools and blog-interfaces and as such are important as part of an indirect support structure. p. 3

Learner autonomy – Self-directed Learning p. 4

To be able to learn using a PLE, a learner will have to be fairly autonomous. Bouchard (2009) and Dron (2007) both suggest that learner autonomy is not a particular quality or level of independence in learning that people have, but a relational interplay between contextual and personal factors. Adult learners make choices about the level of control imposed by others on their learning p. 4

Link to Bouchard in [@kop2011dimensions] p. 4

The algorithmic factors, for instance, would in a formal class room be the instructor’s responsibility, but are in an autonomous learning system linked to tasks that the learner will have to carry out independently, which could be problematic. The conative factors would in a traditional adult education class be very important in learners either participating in learning or not. If confidence levels are low, it is not likely that a person will take up learning by using a PLE. p. 4

Creating learning experiences p. 4

Nathan Shedroff added some issues important for creating valuable experiences. He provides six design principles which together ‘generate an enormous palette of possibilities for creating effective, meaningful, and successful experiences’ (Shedroff, 2009, p2). These six principles are: p. 4

1.Time and duration. A learning experience might start long before a learner touches the computer. An experience in her life might make that she is already thinking about the learning and the information and the collaboration required to engage in learning. A learner might then get immersed in the learning activity and still be thinking and digesting what has been learned long after the actual activity has finished. An awareness of the time cycle involved in building up of true engagement and the continuation time it takes up to move into the next learning cycle are crucial in building structures to accommodate learning. p. 4

2. Interactivity. People can interact in a passive or in an active way. E.g. learners might follow a conversation on Twitter, or on a favourite blog or discussion board, without directly participating. On the other hand, someone could be actively blogging and be a central node on a network and create a following on Twitter. People can interact with other people, p. 4

but can also interact with resources that they find through aggregating, or through discussions with peers or more knowledgeable others than themselves. Web2.0 has made it possible to make connections between information and people to enhance learning. p. 5

3. Intensity. The intensity with which people are engaged with the learning experience would quite often depend on the level of these interactions. Emerging research shows that the closer people are involved with other people who are participating in the learning activity, or when interacting with resources; the more the experience will attract them, will influence how much time and energy they will be willing to invest in the undertaking (Dron and Anderson, 2007; Kop 2010 in press). It is suggested that the creation of a place where people feel comfortable and trusted will aid in this development. Another level of intensity can be reached through active interaction with resources. Metros (2001) for instance described a continuum from a very low level of engagement, eg. in using email to reaching a ‘flow-state’ by immersion in activity, for instance in computer game simulations, where people would be so engrossed in the activity that they forget that they are learning. Sensorial and cognitive triggers built into the learning experience can aid a move towards a ‘flow-state’. p. 5

Intensity - the use of two-on-two Skype calls, and "everyone is typing" Etherpad in-document chat p. 5

Sensorial and cognitive triggers – The design of information. ‘Trying to find new forms to present, represent and visualize what we are trying to communicate will be important in engaging learners in learning activities. ‘The most important aspect of any design is how it is understood in the minds of the audience.’ (Shedroff, 2009, p60) Everyone will create mental maps of what they have experienced and the crunch is to design the PLE in such a way that what you would like the learner to remember or know will remain in his mind. ‘New cognitive models can often revolutionize an audience’s understanding of data, information, or an experience by helping them understand and reorganize things previously understood (or perhaps, not understood) in a way that illuminates the topic or experience’(Shedroff, 2009, p60). p. 5

5. Breadth and consistency. People build up an image of themselves in the world, a ‘gestalt’; experiences are experienced in a holistic way and the individual’s mind processes all physical and mental aspects of the person simultaneously. For the design of a PLE this would mean that consistency in components design, and a correlation between the individual components will aid the development of a meaningful learning experience. The experiences should ‘feel similar and related, even if the details are quite different’ (Shedroff, 2009, p96). p. 5

6. Significance and meaning. All these dimensions and their interrelation will influence how meaningful a learning experience is to a learner. The developers should ‘understand what makes a good experience first, and then translate these principles, as well as possible, into the desired media without the technology dictating the form of the experience’ (Shedroff, 2009, p1). p. 5

The one thing that is missing is the "kick" from seeing new connections, "pieces falling into place" etc p. 5

Skills and competencies required to learn while using a Personal Learning Environment p. 5

Critical thinking skills and media literacy seem to be best learned in a formal environment as the presence of an expert to challenge beliefs and show opposing points of view to the learner seems required for a critical awareness to develop. Some argue however that these skills will develop while engaging in online communication with others, or via challenging feedback or recommendations through the PLE system itself (CIBER, 2008; Walters and Kop, 2009; Downes, 2009b; Partnership for 21st century skills, 2009). p. 6

References p. 6