Group items tagged

In this article, the authors explore how PLEs, social media, and self regulated connect. Also introduces a pedagogical framework to for social media to support self-regulated learning

This article discusses how the use of formal and informal education can mesh. It talks about the importance of self-regulation in terms of connection to social media and how it can impact learning. It gives examples of how different media can be used in learning and enhance the PLN.

This paper is most useful for the discussion of how social media can help students develop self regulated learning skills in a PLE. A useful table is near the end of the article showing how teaches can use social media at 3 different levels of complexity for knowledge management.

This paper discusses how Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) integrate formal and informal learning and help students self-regulate learning in "higher education contexts" through social media. Connectivism has given rise to the idea that "the community is the curriculum", so institutions should foster the creation of communities among their students to allow them a more personalized education. PLEs are the tools, services and communities that learners choose to use as they pursue knowledge. PLEs are an attempt to deliberately unify formal and informal learning, especially in e-learning situations. PLEs specifically address social media use and the creation of a cultivated online identity to enhance learning in the learner's chosen arena. In order to fully leverage PLEs via social media, students must use personal knowledge management (PKM) skills. S involves "creating, organizing and sharing digital content and information" and balancing contexts, among other skills. Students cano sumo mine their PLEs, but this requires knowledge management and self-regulation.

I like how this article views PLNs from the angle as if the user already has a social networking account. Most of the article I've come across have a list of steps that a person has to follow and sites that they need to sign up for, but this article assumes the reader has these log ins (because they probably do). It shows how to take what you are probably already using and turn it into a PLE to foster and grow knowledge.

This article states the importance of connectivism in the facilitation of self-directed and self-regulated components of education. Details of a study on introducing learners to this type of learning report the necessity of student support and scaffolding when planning to implement self-directed learning into a course.

This paper argues that using Personal Learning Environments (PLE-these are functionally equivalent to PLNs) self regulation is important. Because the use of PLEs are based on individual goals and actions the use of behavior which proves effective at reaching goals is important. They then suggest a framework for self regulated learning when using PLEs.

Authors present evidence that social media facilitate the development of personal learning environments (PLEs) in higher education. The community is the curriculum, not the vessel. Learners are in charge of self-regulating their experiences because PLEs put the responsibility to organize information on the learners. Authors present a framework for use of social media to support self-regulation in PLEs in higher education.

Suggests that understanding how members of a learning community converse is an important component of understanding connectivism. The tone of the interactions in a forum rely on the design and management of the space. Furthermore, learning depends on sharing in conversations and interactions which themselves can be meaningful activities. During communication among learners, there is a balance of what is good for each individual and the ability to move towards a common purpose.

In this article, Andrew Ravenscroft explores a "dialogue rich view of connectivism" and how we can develop learners that can "think, reason and analyse." He takes inspiration from social constructivist theory to focus on dialogue as a vehicle for learning. Ravenscroft begins by detailing Siemens 8 principles of connectivism. He then asks 3 questions: how can we understand the dialogue processes of a networked world, what dialogue features make for quality connections and how do we design to promote quality connections. He starts to explore the questions with Socrates and the Socratic method. This method has applications for 21st century learning. He reviews Hegel's dialectic as well. Ravenscroft maps these positions to connectivism because dialectic helps refine knowledge from a diversity of opinions, supports the capacity to know more, consideration of alternative viewpoints, fosters a constant evolution of knowledge, and promotes critical and collaborative dialogue. Then he discusses dialogic processes and how they map to connectivism. Dialectic and dialogic can work, not in opposition, but together in different aspects. Dialectic focuses on the epistemic and cognitive dimensions of learning, while dialogic focuses more on emotional and interpersonal aspects. The author then details dialogue game interactions and how they can foster learning. To be successful they need to balance orchestration and openness. This article proposes that language and dialogue remain a "most powerful semiotic system."

What a fascinating article. Ravenscroft's discussion of a scaffolded system to build a learner's dialogic skills reminds me of research I did for my EdTech504 class on self-regulated learning. Roger Azevedo is developing and experimenting with a similar game, MetaTutor, which scaffolds student learning as well. I think self-regulation is complex and difficult to teach in the classroom, and am amazed that researchers are creating software to build self-efficacy!

This article discusses several concerns with connectivism. One issue is the ability of learners to self-regulate. This is a higher order skill that many adults have not mastered, and some teachers are expecting it of primary age students. The author also indicates a debate among connectivism adherents about the value of "lurkers". Some see it as s valuable activity that introduces learners to the community gradually. Others see lurkers as leeches who are taking without giving in return.

This article discuss the different ways school librarians have access to self-regulated professional development opportunities in the form of online personal learning networks. Examples include discussion lists, webinars, blogs and twitter feeds. A twitter group was researched and was found beneficial.

I didn't even consider how librarians could be brought into the PLN era. When thinking about my school librarian, the first thought is how she deals with books all day. Then you have to consider their use of online databases and the potential to converse with professionals all over the world.

This was an interesting read because my soon-to-be sister-in-law works in a university library and I had a conversation with her last summer about how technology affects her work and how she uses technology to help her, instead of librarians becoming obsolete as many think they will.

This article explores Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) as a way to introduce both formal and informal learning within higher education. Specifically, research shows how using a variety of social media tools to customize a PLE can foster learner-controlled instruction. To achieve the learning experience they desire, though, students must possess the skills needed to engage in a self-regulated learning system with the help of both an instructor and peers.

This article really demonstrates the role of the teacher in modeling and encouraging effective use of social media. In my opinion, the framework created by the author would work best under a constructivist learning environment since so much of the class would be taken up by teaching how to use technology. That said, once students were proficient, they could explore class subject-related information online.

The article discusses the concept of PLEs and social media, including the perceived thought that PLEs could be considered a pedagogy or a form of technology. The article further discusses that PLEs have the advantage of making the learning specific to each student.

Authors discuss advantages of personal learning environments in facilitating collaboration and fostering learner control. PLEs are facilitated by technology, networking, and self-regulation by learners. Open network learning environments from instructors allow PLEs to form. Focus of PLE is not information consumption, but information creation and participation. Authors relate PLE and ONLE to the theory of connectivism and discuss various applications and limitations.

Fantastic quote: "Educators perceive the instructional value of integrating Web 2.0 tools include autonomy, diversity, openness, and connectedness (van Harmelen, 2006); yet, they find multiple technologies daunting, which may affect their attitudes toward online learning. The integration of multiple Web 2.0 tools has created frustration among educators and students because they lack knowledge of the tools (Lee, Miller, & Newnham, 2008), difficulty learn- ing different tools (Weller, 2007), conducting multiple authentications (Suess & Morooney, 2009), visiting multiple sites for different tools, etc. This phenomenon results from a lack of understanding of the social networking learning paradigm and inappropriate integration." This article describes the role of Personalized Learning Environments (PLEs) and how Open Network Learning Environments (ONLEs) are instrumental for creating a PLE. The authors indicate that connectivism is a key underlying principle for developing such a PLE--seeking connections to learners and sources of information. They cite Siemens ("the pipe is more important than the content in the pipe"), which surprised me, as I read that comment from Siemens as hyperbolic. Practical advice for creating your own PLE are also incorporated, as well as examples of how to work and learn within a PLE. The authors suggest that PLEs (operating through ONLEs) disrupt LMSs in the same way that technology disrupts learning in general. Interesting analogy.