Making it Rich and Personal: Crafting an Institutional Personal Learning Environment

Many of the communities interested in learning and teaching technologies within higher education now accept the view that a conception of personal learning environments provides the most realistic and workable perspective of learners' interactions with and use of technology. This view may not be reflected in the behaviour of those parts of a university which normally purchase and deploy technology infrastructure. These departments or services are slow to change because they are typically, and understandably, risk-averse, the more so because the consequences of expensive decisions about infrastructure will stay with the organisation for many years. Furthermore across the broader less technically or educationally informed academic community, the awareness of and familiarity with technologies in support of learning may be varied. In this context, work to innovate the learning environment will require considerable team effort and collective commitment. This paper presents a case study account of institutional processes harnessed to establish a universal personal learning environment fit for the 21st century.

[1]  Peter Bradwell,et al.  The edgeless university: why higher education must embrace technology , 2010 .

[2]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Designing Environments for Constructive Learning , 2012, NATO ASI Series.

[3]  Hugh C. Davis,et al.  Semantic Technologies in Learning and Teaching (SemTech) - JISC Report , 2009 .

[4]  Tim O'Reilly,et al.  What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software , 2007 .

[5]  Reyes Llopis-García Email Tandem Exchanges as a Tool for Authentic Cultural Learning , 2012, Int. J. Virtual Pers. Learn. Environ..

[6]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[7]  Graham Attwell,et al.  Personal Learning Environments - the future of eLearning? , 2007 .

[8]  E. Wenger Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[9]  S. White Higher education and learning technologies : an organisational perspective , 2006 .

[10]  D. Jonassen,et al.  A Manifesto for a Constructivist Approach to Uses of Technology in Higher Education , 1993 .

[11]  Stephen Marshall,et al.  AN E-LEARNING MATURITY MODEL ? , 2002 .

[12]  Richard E. Ferdig Design, Utilization, and Analysis of Simulations and Game-Based Educational Worlds , 2013 .

[13]  Zane L. Berge,et al.  Virtual Worlds : Corporate Early Adopters Pave the Way , 2011 .

[14]  Shalin Hai-Jew Virtual Immersive and 3D Learning Spaces: Emerging Technologies and Trends , 2010 .

[15]  Clay Shirky A Group is Its Own Worst Enemy , 2005 .

[16]  Sandra Schaffert,et al.  On the way towards Personal Learning Environments: Seven crucial aspects , 2008 .

[17]  Bill Olivier and Oleg Liber Lifelong Learning: The Need for Portable Personal Learning Environments and Supporting Interoperability Standards , 2001 .

[18]  M. van Harmelen Personal Learning Environments , 2006 .

[19]  Leslie Jarmon,et al.  Homo Virtualis: Virtual Worlds, Learning, and an Ecology of Embodied Interaction , 2010, Int. J. Virtual Pers. Learn. Environ..

[20]  William W. Gaver Technology affordances , 1991, CHI.

[21]  S. Toth-Cohen,et al.  Second Life® Project Development as a Venue for Interdisciplinary Collaboration , 2010 .

[22]  William W. Gaver,et al.  AFFORDANCES FOR INTERACTION: THE SOCIAL IS MATERIAL FOR DESIGN , 1996 .

[23]  Stephen Downes E-learning 2.0 , 2005, ELERN.

[24]  Robyn Henderson,et al.  Multiliteracies and technology enhanced education: social practice and the global classroom , 2010 .

[25]  Hugh C. Davis,et al.  eMM Benchmarking at Southampton:the carpet, observations and reflections , 2008 .