Group items tagged

Definitions An examination of the historical context shows that PLEs and CILs grew out of educational technologists’ and librarians’ increasing dissatisfaction with the ability of the LMS and IL standards to meet both learning and learner needs. This section will define each of these concepts. Personal learning environment While there are numerous competing definitions and conceptions of PLEs, the authors align with Attwell's (2010) definition, which summarises the essential characteristics: PLEs are made-up of a collection of loosely coupled tools, including Web 2.0 technologies, used for working, learning, reflection and collaboration with others. PLEs can be seen as the spaces in which people interact and communicate and whose ultimate result is learning and the development of collective know-how. A PLE can use social software for informal learning which is learner driven, problem-based and motivated by interest – not as a process triggered by a single learning provider, but as a continuing activity. PLEs are spaces for the modern learner to create, explore and communicate (Dalsgaard 2006, p. 2). While they include and respond to new technology tools, PLEs are characterised as an approach to learning rather than a set of applications (ELI 2009, p. 1). Critical information literacy CIL is a complex set of behaviours, attitudes and interactions that a learner adopts to engage critically in information landscapes. It is founded in critical pedagogy and critical information studies and reframes IL as a culturally and socially situated phenomenon (Luke and Kapitzke 1999, p. 5). The CIL approach to inquiry encourages an individual who is not passive, but one who poses questions and interrogates information systems; who explores, plays, internalises and contributes; one who reflects and revises information practices and beliefs (Accardi, Drabinski, and Kumbier 2010, p. xii).

What capacities and practices will learners and teachers need to develop? How will the learner and teacher role be defined within these approaches? What barriers will inhibit the exploration of these approaches? What components of the traditional approach should be protected and maintained?