Developing and utilizing Web2.0-based Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) in educational settings is becoming a promising area of development in e-Learning. While the concept of student’s control appears to be an essential and defensible aim of PLEs, there is little consensus regarding what this concept means and how students can attain control over their Web2.0-based PLEs. In this paper a conceptual framework for building Web2.0-based PLEs is proposed. The framework consists of four main elements: learning potential of Web2.0 tools and services, project-based teaching approach, student’s control model, and technology enhanced learning activities. Considering student’s control as the core part of PLEs, the main intention of the framework is to establish a roadmap for teachers that would help them define appropriate technology enhanced learning activities supporting such processes. The students then can accomplish these learning activities to develop their PLEs and complete their learning projects.

1. 1Challenge the future
A Roadmap for Building Web2.0-based Personal
Learning Environments in Educational Settings
Ebrahim Rahimi, Jan Van den Berg, Wim Veen

2. 2Challenge the future
Main features of PLEs
1- PLE refers to the process that students construct their learning
environment by the tools they choose, the communities they start and
join, the resources they assemble, and the things they write (Wilson,
2008).
2- PLE is an important output of the students’ learning process
(Drexler, 2010).
3- The conceived goal of PLEs is to transfer the control of learning to
students (Attwell, 2007; Downes, 2006).

3. 3Challenge the future
Ebrahim Rahimi, Jan Van Den Berg, Wim Veen, PLE 2011, Southampton
But, how
should I
learn and do
all of these?
The Challenges of PLEs from the student’s perspective

4. 4Challenge the future
The Challenges of PLEs from the Teacher’s perspective
http://www.businesspundit.com/5-steps-to-dealing-with-angry-clients/
How should I
teach them
according to
the PLE’s
principles and
approaches?

5. 5Challenge the future
Perceived Problem:
Lack of a pedagogy-driven framework/roadmap to support
teachers and students to build and utilize their PLEs

6. 6Challenge the future
Learning
Potential of
Web2.0 tools
and services
Student's
control
Project-based
teaching
approach
Technology-
enhanced
learning activities
Explores Explores
Supports Supports
Facilitates
Improves
Figure 1: A conceptual framework to develop PLEs
A Framework to Develop Web2.0-based PLEs

7. 7Challenge the future
Student’s
Control Model

8. 8Challenge the future
Main dimensions of student's control
POWER (Achieving control)
SU
PPO
RT
(K
eeping
control)
INDEPENDENCE
(Practicing control)
Main dimensions of student's control (Garrison and Baynton,1987)
Student as
socializer
Student as
decision
maker
Student as
knowledge
developer

9. 9Challenge the future
iii) Student as socializer to achieve social skills
ii) Knowledge developer to acquire relevant cognitive capabilities
i) Decision maker to practice control through the personal endeavors to
choose and manage web resources for enriching their learning experiences
According to the student’s control model, a student in order
to be in control of their learning process should act as:

10. 10Challenge the future
The proposed student’s control model
Co-production
of knowledge
Personal
knowledge
management
Development
of personal
learning
network
Student as
Knowledge
developer
Student as
Socializer
Student as
Decision
maker
POWER
SUPPO
RT
INDEPENDENCE
PLE
developer

11. 11Challenge the future
Web2.0

12. 12Challenge the future
Underlying concepts of Web2.0
• Social Software
• Micro-content
• Openness
• Folksonomy
• Sophisticated Interfaces

13. 13Challenge the future
Matching Web2.0 concepts and student’s control model
Knowledge producer
Connecting the classroom to the
world (Openness)
Appropriation and Remixing content
(Micro Content)
Developing the
language of
community
(Folksonomy)
Student-centred
instruction
(Participatory architecture
Social software)
Socializer Decision Maker
Negotiation of control
Co-designing of learning
activities
Co-construction of
knowledge
(Participatory architecture
+ Micro-content)
Developing a
Personal
knowledge
management
strategy
Mash ups of
content, services
and,
people(Sophisticat
ed interfaces)
Extending
PLN
(Openness+Social
software)

14. 14Challenge the future
Project-Based
Teaching

15. 15Challenge the future
Technology-
Enhanced
Learning
Activities

16. 16Challenge the future
Locating, finding, bullet pointing, highlighting,
bookmarking, social networking, social bookmarking,
favorite-ing/local bookmarking, searching, googling
Advanced searching, Boolean searching, blog
journaling, twittering, categorizing and tagging,
commenting, annotating, subscribing
Implementing, carrying out, using, executing, running,
loading, playing, operating, hacking, uploading,
sharing, editing.
Integrating, mashing, linking, reverse-engineering,
cracking, mind-mapping, validating.
Monitoring, blog/vlog commenting, reviewing, posting,
moderating, collaborating, networking, reflecting,
(alpha & beta) testing
Programming, filming, animating, blogging, video
blogging, mixing, remixing, wiki-ing, publishing,
vodcasting, podcasting, directing/producing, creating
or building mash ups
Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy (Churches ,2008)

17. 17Challenge the future
Roadmap for Building Web2.0-based PLEs
Lower order
thinking skills
Higher order
thinking skills

18. 18Challenge the future
Questions, comments, feedback?