Research Proposal - Design & Development of PLE for HE

8/7/2019 Research Proposal - Design & Development of PLE for HE

1/8

Design and Development of Personal Learning Environment for Higher Education

1. Introduction

The rapid evolution of the web has enabled endless possibilities of teaching and learningespecially in higher education today. Web applications (or more commonly known as socialsoftware or Web 2.0) such as blogs, wikis, social networks and etc. have been proven to beessential educational tools for both educator and learner [2]. E-learning has become prominentin almost all higher educational institutions. In a typical learning environment, e-learning isused to facilitate interaction beyond the lecture hall between educators and learners. However,in reality, the interaction is very much limited within the existing e-learning platform and in mostcases; it is under utilized to achieve its educational goal to increase the learners learningexperience.

This research wishes to look at the possibility to design and develop a better learningenvironment, which is called Personal Learning Environment for higher education to promotebetter social interaction and control of self-regulated learning within the existing e-learningplatform by taking the advantages of social software in education.

1.1. Problem Statement

Institutional e-learning platform (i.e. Learning Management System (LMS)) has been widelypracticed in managing teaching and learning process in higher educational institution.However, in practical, LMS is more of a coursework focus and supports teaching andadministration more than learning. An educator controls the content or flow of coursework inLMS and in a way hoping to control the learners learning process. The effectiveness of learning (both formal and informal) in LMS is not guaranteed as different individual requiresdifferent set of learning needs. LMS cannot provide an effective learning environment thataccommodates the diverse needs in different learners to enhance their learning process [1].Furthermore, the following problems/limitations in learning are obvious within LMS in higher education that hinders the individual learning process:

a) Unidirectional knowledge creation: content of LMS is usually created by the educatorsand learners have no ability to create their own knowledge in the system.b) Limited communication: although most LMS incorporates discussion board/forum

facility for both educators and learners to discuss relevant topics but in reality, notmany have been utilizing such facility due to lack of motivation and participation.Communication normally only occurs during physical lectures and never expandoutside of them.

c) Lack of collaboration: learners have no ability at all to collaborate with each other tocreate knowledge in LMS. As collaboration learning is one of the effective ways of learning, the ability to collaborate within a learning system is essential.

d) Learning ends with semester: most learners use LMS for the purpose to get educatorsteaching materials and to see due date of assignments. Once the semester ends,learning eventually ends as such system will not be frequented anymore. Mainly due to

lack of update from the educators and learners feel there is no need to fulfill theinstitutional requirement to do so.

In order to remedy the limitations in LMS, a new educational concept called Personal LearningEnvironment (PLE) has been actively researched and practiced to be integrated withinstitutional learning. PLE allows the learner to control his or her own learning environmentduring the learning process with the use of social software. A personalized learningenvironment is needed to promote individual self-regulated learning through active/inquirylearning and social participation. PLE provides the essential quality for both educators andlearners to be able to communicate, collaborate, create and search for knowledge and connectwith one another where this relationship may not end as the semester ends. PLE can be used


2/8

as a formal learning platform as well as an informal learning platform that promote continuouslearning experience.

1.2. Aim and Objectives

The aim of this research is to design and develop a personal learning environment (PLE) for higher education by integrating PLE to existing e-learning platforms. In order to design anddevelop an effective PLE, the following objectives must be fulfilled:

a) Understand the underlying learning principles or theories that are required to supportthe PLE.

b) Identify types of social software: what are the essential components, applications andtools in a PLE that support formal and/or informal learning, preferably continuouslearning?

c) Propose a design of PLE for both learners and educators that incorporate scaffoldingand active learning, social participation and appropriate assessment.

d) Develop a PLE prototype.e) Evaluate the developed PLE.

1.3. Scope and Limitation of research

The research is only targeted for both educators and learners who use e-learning platform for teaching and learning in higher education, particularly in university. The research will beconducted based on the following assumptions:

a) Both educators and learners are current users of existing e-learning platforms whichthey are already familiar with its functions and facilities.

b) They are also super-users in Web 2.0 technology (i.e. social software) such as blogs,microblogs, twitter, wiki and etc. which they have already been using these in their daily lives for informal learning.

c) Scaffolding and self-directed learning are sufficient and effective for most knowledgedomain where limited guidance is required in teaching and learning.

d) Learners are comfortable to participate in community learning and are willing to share

and connect with groups of similar interest peers and/or experts.

2. Personal Learning Environment

2.1. Social Computing

Social computing is believed to be an essential driver for the evolution of the Web, creating anew research area for information systems where focus is on its social impact, values toorganizations and collaborative productivity. In general, social computing represents acollection of web applications or technologies which we usually refer as Web 2.0 or socialsoftware.

Social software can be categorized into four conceptual groups according to their usage in thisWeb era [6]. Examples given for each groups are chosen particularly for their potential usagein the higher education environment.

Category Description Types of Application: Examples Collaboration Applications that allow collaborative

authoring content by multipleparties

Wikis: Wikipedia


3/8

Communication Applications that allow interactionbetween multiple parties

Email: Gmail Instant Messaging: MSN Live,Yahoo Messenger Peer-to-peer: Skype

Relationshipmanagement

Applications that allow identity andrelationship management via socialnetwork

Social network: Facebook,LinkedIn

Information Applications that allow collection or publishing or sharing of informationand facilitating feedback input

Blog: Blogger, WordpressMicroblog: Twitter, Plurk Media Sharing: Flickr, YouTube Social Bookmarking: Del.ici.ous

2.2. e-Learning Platform

Other than attending physical lectures, both educators and learners are required to utilize web-based e-Learning platforms as provided by the institution for the ease of dissemination of teaching materials and useful information about the coursework. These platforms are usuallyassessable with individual login credential by learners who register for a particular coursework.Most higher learning institutions provide open source e-Learning platforms such as Moodleand Blackboard which are better known as Learning Management System (LMS). A typicalLMS usually includes the following functions [6]:

a) Content management: educators have the ability to manage and upload courseworkmaterials (i.e. documents, pictures, etc.) to the system

b) Learning process control: educators organize the content according to the learningprocess required by the coursework (i.e. calendar and assignments)

c) Communication: LMS allows direct communication between its members through emailor collaborative communication through forum. Some LMS does include instantmessaging/chat facility.

d) Assessment: each learner is able to view the grade of each assignment submitted asprovided by the educators.

e) Administration: educators have the ultimate administrator rights to control the overallLMS; however individual learner has the basic administration of changing password,edit profile information, etc.

In a typical learning environment, LMS plays a major role in both learners and educators, moreso for the latter. However, as web technologies evolve, so does learning style and learningenvironment. LMS is no longer able to cope with the increasing need of social participation of the learners and educators for continuous collaborative learning [7]. As a result, PersonalLearning Environment (PLE) emerges as the new educational concept to promote moreeffective learning environment.

Ideally, PLE provides a learning environment (with integration of social software) that supportlearners to make their own decision in directing their learning experience. PLE promotesscaffolding and active learning where educators provide scaffold tasks and it is up to thelearners how to achieve the tasks [1]. PLE encourages knowledge construction, collaboration,communication and social networking between learners, their peers and the experts (includingthe educators).


4/8

2.3. Contrasting LMS and PLE

To further realize the potential of PLE, the below table is used to contrast LMS against PLE inseven identified important aspects (in conceptual level and pedagogical impacts) and thepotential challenges for moving towards PLE [8]:

EssentialAspects

LMS PLE Challenges

1 Role of learner Learner is onlyconsumer of knowledgeand highly dependenton the educatorscontent for learning

Learner is prosumer(producer + consumer)of knowledge andeducator acts asscaffold

Self-regulation isessential to movefrom consumer role to prosumer

2 Personalization Organization of contentis limited to the systemfunctionality andpreference of theeducator

Organization of contentis flexible and to thepreference of theindividual learner

Self-organizationand competenceof using tools

3 Content Developed by theeducator or domainexperts

Consists of myriadsource of knowledgefrom multiple sources inthe Web

Competence insearching andorganizingappropriatesources

4 Socialinvolvement

Limited collaborativework and only focus onthe closed learner group

Community and socialinvolvement is the keyfor learning process

Community andcollaboration aslearningopportunities

5 Ownership Controlled by the

educational institutions

Controlled by the

learner or serviceproviders

Awareness of

personal data

6 Educational &organizationalculture

Imitation of classroomlearning, courseworkfocused and educator oriented

Focus on self-regulatedlearner

Change of learning cultureand perspective

7 Technologicalaspects

Classical learningcontent managementinteroperability betweenLMS and database

Social software andaggregation of multiplesources

Interoperabilitybetween LMS andsocial software


5/8

3. Research Methodology

Research in information system (IS) usually involves qualitative research methods such asaction research, case study research, ethnography and grounded theory which collectqualitative data through observations, interviews, questionnaires and etc [9]. Qualitativeresearch is used to gain deeper knowledge and the ability to explain certain social phenomenawhich make this type of research method suitable for most of information systems [8].

However, as pointed out by Reeves, Herrington and Oliver (2005), design research isrecommended as a better approach in conducting research on the effect of social computing inhigher education. Hence, the question is: can design really a suitable approach in conductingresearch in information systems? According to Vaishnavi and Kuechler (2004), it is aconfirmed yes. Design research comprises a set of techniques to design and create artifacts tofurther understand, explain and enhance on particularly the behavior aspects of IS. The outputof design research is the artifacts (generally, system) that includes (but not limited to) models,methods, constructs, instantiations and better theories.

A general design research methodology follows a series of processes or steps which areusually iterative:

Figure 1: General Methodology of Design Research

Awareness of problemDesign research starts with the awareness of problem. As stated in the problem statement in

earlier section, the problem is identified as the limitation of existing LMS in higher educationthat has failed to promote self-regulated learning as LMS is educator-centered.

SuggestionA PLE is suggested to solve the immediate problem by designing a more learner-centeredplatform that integrate with social software which promotes better social participation andinquiry-based learning in both formal and/or informal learning environment.

KnowledgeFlow

ProcessSteps

Output

Awareness of problem

Suggestion

Development

Evaluation

Conclusion

Proposal

Tentativedesign

Artifacts

Performancemeasures

Results

Circumscription

Operation & Goalknowledge


6/8

DevelopmentWith pedagogy theory and design requirements in mind, the PLE is developed. It would be aweb-based platform that can integrate with existing LMS and incorporates social software thatcan be used for self-regulated learning.

EvaluationA PLE prototype should be available for evaluation by potential users (i.e. current learners inhigher education) to examine its effectiveness on individual learning experience. The result of evaluation is a form of feedback (circumscription) to be used in another phase of suggestion(continuous improvement through iteration).

ConclusionThe result of this research should be able to contribute valuable knowledge in both educationand technology domains.

4. Milestones

The following table shows the planned milestones to be achieved for this research based onthe five different stages in the design metholodogy:

Stages in DesignMethodology

Milestone EstimatedCompletion Period

(Week)Awareness of problem

Identify of research problemSearch for appropriate research methodologyReport writing: Chapter 1 (draft)

122

Literature reviewIssues related to PLE and LMSLearning theoriesDesign issuesReport writing: Chapter 2 (draft)

3332

Suggestion Conceptual design of PLEIdentify characteristics of PLEIdentify design requirementsReport writing: Chapter 3 (draft)

2113

Development Review of development toolsSelect appropriate social softwareCoding and integrationTestingReport writing: Chapter 4 (draft)

22443

Evaluation Identify potential users as evaluators

Identify measurement criteria and evaluation methodEvaluation processReport writing: Chapter 5 (draft)

1

123

Conclusion Summarize evaluation resultsPropose further enhancementReport writing: Chapter 6 (draft)Report writing: Finalizing all chapters

2123


7/8

5. Conclusion

The lack of social interaction and limited functionalities in LMS inspire this research. Thedesign and development of PLE is hoped to bring e-learning in higher education to the nextlevel where teaching and learning are not limited to the boundary of institutional learningenvironment. The end product of this research is aimed to see the integration of appropriatesocial software in creating a new personalized learning environment that can benefit botheducator and learner in their teaching and learning process.

However, the perspective shifts from LMS to PLE will require much more than onlytechnological aspect. Human aspects play a major role in the success of PLE implementation.The willingness of the learners to shape their new learning environment by social participationand willingness to share knowledge are utmost important success criteria.


8/8

References

1. McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. J. W. Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. AustralasianJournal of Educational Technology , 26(1). 2007. Retrieved fromhttp://ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/mcloughlin.html

2. Drexler, W. The networked student model for construction of personal learningenvironments: Balancing teacher control and student autonomy. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 26(3). 2010. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/drexler.html

3. Wilson, S., Liber, O., Johnson, M., Beauvoir, P., Sharples, P. & Milligan, C. PersonalLearning Environments: Challenging the dominant design of educational systems. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 3 (2), 27-38, 2007. Rome: Societ Italiana di e-Learning. Retrieved October 19, 2007 from http://je-lks.maieutiche.economia.unitn.it/index.php/Je-LKS_EN/article/viewFile/247/229

4. Hain, S. and Back, A. Personal Learning Journal Course Design for Using Weblogs inHigher Education. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, Volume 6, Issue 3, 2008, pp. 189- 196, available online at www.ejel.org

5. Fournier, H., Kop, R. Researching the design and development of a Personal LearningEnvironment. The PLE Conference , 2010, ISSN 2077-9119. Retrieved fromhttp://pleconference.citilab.eu

6. M. Amberg, M. Reinhardt, M. Haushahnand P. Hofmann. Designing an Integrated Web-based Personal Learning Environment based on the Crucial Success Factors of SocialNetworks. Research, Reflections and Innovations in Integrating ICT in Education , Vol 2,2009, 1075-1080. Retrieved from http://www.formatex.org/micte2009/volume2.htm

7. Downes, S. (2005). E-learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine, Oct.http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1

8. Schaffert, S. & Hilzensauer, W. On the way towards Personal Learning Environments:Seven crucial aspects. eLearning Papers, No 9, 2008, 1-10. Retrieved fromhttp://www.elearningpapers.eu

9. Lee, A. S. and Liebenau, J. Information systems and qualitative research. In Proceedingsof the IFIP Tc8 WG 8.2 international Conference on information Systems and QualitativeResearch (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States), 1997, 1-8.

10. Baskerville, R. "Investigating Information Systems with Action Research," Communicationsof the AIS (2:19), 1999, 1-32.11. Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. Design research: A socially responsible

approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing inHigher Education , 16(2), 2005, 96115.

12. Vaishnavi, V. and Kuechler, W. Design Research in Information Systems January 20,2004, last updated August 16, 2009.URL: http://ais.affiniscape.com/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=279

13. Myers, M. D. "Qualitative Research in Information Systems," MIS Quarterly (21:2), June1997, pp. 241-242. MISQ Discovery , archival version, June1997, http://www.misq.org/discovery/MISQD_isworld/. MISQ Discovery , updated version,last modified: September 23, 2010 www.qual.auckland.ac.nz

Research Proposal - Design & Development of PLE for HE

Documents

Transcript of Research Proposal - Design & Development of PLE for HE