A literature review of personalized learning
and the Cloud
June 2015
SchoolontheCloud.eu
School on the Cloud: Connecting E...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
2 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
	
Deliverable Title: A literature review of personalized ...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
3 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
	
“School on Cloud: Connecting Education to the Cloud for...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
4 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
Contributors	
Tereza	Beránková	
Ingo	Bosse	
Zuzana	Brotán...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
5 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
Deliverable number 4.1
Title State of the art literature ...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
6 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
1 Summary	
	
In order to provide effective application of...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
7 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1	 Summary	...............................
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
8 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
2 Approach	of	the	review	
Changes in Europe and all aroun...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
9 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
3 Defining	personalized	learning	
There is a multiple of ...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
10 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
- Self-supported learning enables a learner to complete ...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
11 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
• Instruction on the base of the students’ requirements ...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
12 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
Several dimensions are interconnected in the notion of p...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
13 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
Personalization v Differentiation v Individualization Ch...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
14 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
4 e-learning,	m-learning,	i-learning,	or	u-learning?	
Th...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
15 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
Although a common definition of e-learning does not exis...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
16 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
A comparison of e-learning (i-learning), m-learning and ...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
17 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
When looking at the used specific technological tools it...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
18 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
5 Personalized	learning	through	the	use	of	technology	
5...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
19 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
Since that time numerous different conceptualisations an...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
20 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
The driving and restraining forces which impact on the s...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
21 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
From this perspective, focusing on the three aspects – p...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
22 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
6 Strategies	for	a	good	rethinking	of	pedagogy	
In order...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
23 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
This PLE is very much learner controlled and suited to s...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
24 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
monitoring these activities, the learner needs to have c...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
25 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
7 Discussion	onto	the	i-learner	of	the	future		
7.1 The	...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
26 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
anywhere” educational model delivers personalized learni...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
27 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
(ii) summarize the prerequisite concepts
(iii) defining ...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
28 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
In a i-learner school typically are:
• Time and place fo...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
29 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
• capable for self-evaluation,
• embrace failure and lea...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
30 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
accommodate these new needs. Teachers will become facili...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
31 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
8 Conclusions	
There are many different interpretations ...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
32 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
innovative, critical thinking, problem solving, demandin...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
33 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
9 References	
Ainscow, M. (2006). Responding to the chal...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
34 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
Koutsopoulos, K., Ciaperoni, S., Kotsanis, Y. (2015). A ...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
35 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
10 Further	reading	
Adorni, G., Coccoli, M., Torre, I. (...
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
36 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
Kessels, J. (2013), The Future of Education in Flanders....
543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3-	KA3NW	
	
37 School	on	the	Cloud	D4.1	
School on the Cloud: Deliverable D4.1
Prochain SlideShare
Chargement dans…5
×

A literature review of personalized learning and the Cloud

1 360 vues

Publié le

MSc Luc Zwartjes (editor),
School on the Cloud,
ICT Key Action 3 European Project

As technology has become an agent of immense change, it has forced upon the education system Cloud Computing which in the future will have significant ripple effect. In this new educational environment personalized learning should take a central place. To reach this we first need to analyse what personalized learning exactly is. Although there are many definitions and interpretations there is a consensus that personalized learning starts with the learner with the learner in the centre, actively designing the learning goals, deciding how to access and acquire information, and owning the learning. To make this possible the existing virtual learning environment (VLEs) must be transformed into real personal learning environments, using an adapted pedagogy and making i-learning possible.

Publié dans : Formation
0 commentaire
0 j’aime
Statistiques
Remarques
  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Aucun téléchargement
Vues
Nombre de vues
1 360
Sur SlideShare
0
Issues des intégrations
0
Intégrations
375
Actions
Partages
0
Téléchargements
38
Commentaires
0
J’aime
0
Intégrations 0
Aucune incorporation

Aucune remarque pour cette diapositive

A literature review of personalized learning and the Cloud

  1. 1. A literature review of personalized learning and the Cloud June 2015 SchoolontheCloud.eu School on the Cloud: Connecting Education to the Cloud for Digital Citizenship 543221-LLP-1-2013-1-GR-KA3-KA3NW
  2. 2. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 2 School on the Cloud D4.1 Deliverable Title: A literature review of personalized learning and the Cloud, Working Group 3 Deliverable Nr: 4.1 Final date of deliverable: 01/06/2015 Version: 2.0 Dissemination Level: Public Editor: MSc Luc Zwartjes Project Title: School on the Cloud (SoC) Project Nr: 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW Project Start Date: January 1, 2014 Duration: 36 months European Commission: Lifelong Learning Program - ICT Key Action 3 European Project This project has been funded with support from the European Commission, Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Union. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
  3. 3. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 3 School on the Cloud D4.1 “School on Cloud: Connecting Education to the Cloud for Digital Citizenship” European Commission: Lifelong Learning Program ICT Key Action 3 European Project 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW A literature review of personalized learning and the Cloud Working Group 3: Deliverable 4.1 Editor: MSc Luc Zwartjes Leader WG3 Due date of deliverable : 31/03/2015 (Version 1.0) Final date of deliverable: 01/12/2015 (Version 2.0) Start date of project : January 1, 2014 Duration : 36 months Dissemination Level : Public Abstract: As technology has become an agent of immense change, it has forced upon the education system Cloud Computing which in the future will have significant ripple effect. In this new educational environment personalized learning should take a central place. To reach this we first need to analyse what personalized learning exactly is. Although there are many definitions and interpretations there is a consensus that personalized learning starts with the learner in the centre, actively designing the learning goals, deciding how to access and acquire information, and owning the learning. To make this possible the existing virtual learning environment (VLEs) must be transformed into real personal learning environments, using an adapted pedagogy thus making i-learning possible. With the support of the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Union
  4. 4. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 4 School on the Cloud D4.1 Contributors Tereza Beránková Ingo Bosse Zuzana Brotánková Cinzia Colaiuda Lia Contiu Karl Donert Gerhard Doppler Christou Elpida Eric Georgiades Flurina Jenal Ladina Jörger Nikos Lambrinos Bernhard Marti Maria Pigaki Dagmar Skůpová Renata Šolar Chryssanthe Sotiriou Raymond Treier Kateřina Tuicu Andries Valcke Elzbieta Wołoszyńska-Wiśniewska
  5. 5. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 5 School on the Cloud D4.1 Deliverable number 4.1 Title State of the art literature review of personalised learning and the Cloud Type of outputs / products / results Report publication Delivery date M15 June 2015 Dissemination level Public Restricted to other programme participants (including Commission services and project reviewers) Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including EACEA and Commission services and project reviewers) Nature Report Service / Product Demonstrator / Prototype Event Other Language versions EN Target languages Description (limit 1000 characters) Members of working group 1 will contribute to state of the art research by undertaking a literature review of personalised learning and the Cloud. The review will define the nature of the topic and introduce concepts, then deal with developments and issues like safety, security and ethical issues. The reviews from each of participants will be collated and edited by the work package leader. The resulting review will be presented for dissemination and submitted for publication. Copies will be printed- on-demand.
  6. 6. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 6 School on the Cloud D4.1 1 Summary In order to provide effective application of the Cloud in education it is essential to know how the learning should and could – if needed – be adapted. In this respect the concept of ‘personalising learning’ is frequently used.. But what exactly is personalising learning. And how can it be implemented in using the cloud? The aim of WG3 i-Learner of the School on the Cloud network is to investigate this from the point of view of the learner, whereas WG2 i-Teacher looks on the role of the educators, and WG4 i-Future on the technology. The document has two parts: § The first part starts with an evaluation and synthesis of the definitions of personalized learning (Ch. 3), followed by an analysis of how this is implemented in learning style (e-learning vs. i-learning, m-learning and u-learning, Ch. 4) and learning approach (Ch. 5). To implement this an appropriate pedagogy (Ch. 6) is needed. § The second part is an attempt on how to implement this onto the learner of the future (Ch. 7), as well to the learning process and to the learning place. Recommendations are made in Ch. 8.
  7. 7. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 7 School on the Cloud D4.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 6 2 Approach of the review ................................................................................................ 8 3 Defining personalized learning ..................................................................................... 9 3.1 Different styles of learning ................................................................................................................................. 9 3.2 Evolution in the view on personalized learning .................................................................................... 10 3.3 A definition of personalized learning ......................................................................................................... 11 4 e-learning, m-learning, i-learning, or u-learning? ........................................................ 14 4.1 e-learning ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 4.2 i-learning ................................................................................................................................................................. 15 4.3 m-learning .............................................................................................................................................................. 15 4.4 u-learning ................................................................................................................................................................ 15 4.5 Criticising e-learning .......................................................................................................................................... 16 5 Personalized learning through the use of technology ................................................. 18 5.1 From VLEs to PLEs .............................................................................................................................................. 18 5.2 Problem incorporating VLEs and PLEs ...................................................................................................... 19 5.3 Organizing a PLE .................................................................................................................................................. 20 6 Strategies for a good rethinking of pedagogy ............................................................. 22 6.1 Pedagogical approaches of PLEs ................................................................................................................... 22 6.2 Monitoring and control ..................................................................................................................................... 23 7 Discussion onto the i-learner of the future ................................................................. 25 7.1 The learning process .......................................................................................................................................... 25 7.2 The learning material ........................................................................................................................................ 25 7.3 The learning place ............................................................................................................................................... 27 7.4 The learner ............................................................................................................................................................. 28 7.4.1 Attitudes for the i-learner: ........................................................................................................................... 28 7.4.2 Skills ....................................................................................................................................................................... 29 7.4.3 Position of teacher and learner ................................................................................................................. 29 8 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 31 9 References ................................................................................................................. 33 10 Further reading ....................................................................................................... 35
  8. 8. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 8 School on the Cloud D4.1 2 Approach of the review Changes in Europe and all around the world require new ways of understanding, new knowledge, attitudes and skills to work and live. Financial and cultural, especially multi-cultural, changes in the societies touch all levels of education including the diversification in curriculum structure, the introduction of new subjects, and the adoption of new perspectives. In additional, tools introduced in teaching the approaches must be adapted to new methods in order to enhance the thinking process. Children and young people now live and learn in two different worlds – inside and outside school. Bringing together these worlds in a way which focuses on learning will enhance learning in both settings. Much learning goes on outside school, including learning about friendships and relationships, learning through games, sports and pastimes, learning through reading books, comics and magazines and learning through watching TV or surfing the internet. This kind of out-of-school learning is usually driven by interest or perceived need rather than the demands of the curriculum, and is very important to young people. There is a need to focus to: • Investigate didactic process via ICT • reinforce the goal of each subject into an integrated curriculum • take into consideration the target group and their cognitive background.
  9. 9. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 9 School on the Cloud D4.1 3 Defining personalized learning There is a multiple of reasons why the personalisation of learning becomes more and more important. The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2006) sites following negative aspects related to today’s teaching and learning approach: - limitations imposed by physical space - teachers responsible for whole groups at any one time - insufficient use of technology - uniform pace of ‘traditional’ learning - conservative nature of school organisation - step-by-step progression for all children in an equal way - teaching still not an evidence-based profession. In fact one can see the foundations of personalisation as “the moral purpose … of the conscientious teacher to match what is taught, and how it is taught, to the individual learner as a person” (Hopkins. D, in OECD 2006), an approach for future educational needs that foster learning capacity among individual learners (Bentley and Miller, cited OECD 2006). 3.1 Different styles of learning In the research about personalized learning over time a lot of different terms are used, causing confusion on the one hand and on the other conflicting or incomplete interpretations. There are three styles of learning (OECD, Wikipedia): - Formal learning is the mostly state institutionalized curriculum driven education, formally recognized with grades, diplomas, or certificates. - Informal learning has been used most often to describe organized learning outside of the formal education system, having no set objective in terms of learning outcomes and never intentional from the learner’s standpoint. (Merriam et.al. 2007). It comprises learning resulting from daily life activities related to work, family or leisure. - Non-formal learning is defined by the EU as “learning that is not provided by an education or training institution and typically does not lead to certification. It is, however, structured (in terms of learning objectives, learning time or learning support). Non-formal learning is intentional from the learner’s perspective”. Inside each of these we can distinguish – besides personalized learning – different other types of learning, structured here from low to high level of autonomy by the learner: - Independent learning offers the learner possibility to proceed through the course on his/her own, under the teacher’s guidance. He/she is given deadlines for completion of assignments, projects, and tests. This results in classroom differentiation – there are learners who understand the material well, can proceed faster and get e.g. extra exercises, and on the other hand learners who need more time and move at a slower pace. At the end of a period it is best if all have completed the same basic program. - Individualized learning is a method of learning in which content, instructional technology (such as materials) and pace of learning are based upon the abilities and interests of each individual learner, applying differenced didactic strategies to achieve the key competences. The same objectives apply for all learners, as the educational curriculum is defined by the educational staff/government. Teachers still have a key role, sometimes guidance is necessary. The learner’s self-direction as an accessory skill. It values also the cognitive dimension of the learner, as well as previous knowledge and competencies, formal and non-formal. - Mass learning is the opposite of individualized learning. It sees learners as separate entities with unique learning goals and needs requiring customized support (Verpoorten et al. 2009).
  10. 10. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 10 School on the Cloud D4.1 - Self-supported learning enables a learner to complete activities when the learning expected is beyond their level of development (Hewitt 2008). - Self-organized learning is the key component of the SOLE project by Sugata Mitra (Mitra 2015). According his vision “Education is a self-organising system, where learning is an emergent phenomenon”. Here the learner is encouraged to gradually take control of his own learning and learning experiences. The learner is thereby assisted by the teacher/tutor in building up his own knowledge and skills for exploration, competency and creativity (Seel 2012), such as reading comprehension, literacy, behaviour, language, creativity, and problem- solving abilities. There are different objectives for each learner, but it is the learner who takes ownership of their learning experience, organizes and develops the learning. This leads to an increased motivation to learn about more subjects and ideas. On the long turn the learner develops habits to become a lifelong learner. Because of this evolution the learner develops a more trusting relationship with the teacher/tutor, and becomes better at integrating what they already know into (classroom) discussions. - Self-directed learning or autodidactism is self-education about a subject in which one had little to no formal education. The learner takes the initiative and is responsible for all aspects learning (selection, management, assessment). Motivation and volition are hereby critical. - Self-regulated learning refers to the ability of a learner to prepare for his/her own learning, take the necessary steps to learn, manage and evaluate the learning and provide self feedback and judgment, while simultaneously maintaining a high level of motivation (McLoughlin & Lee 2010). One key concept is motivation, which rests on three key factors: perceived controllability, perceived value of the learning task and perceived self-efficacy for it (Verpoorten et al. 2009). Therefore, it is necessary to support the learners’ awareness of the learning goals, their progress, and the context in which their learning is situated. - Seamless learning implies that a student can learn whenever they are curious in a variety of scenarios and that they can switch from one scenario to another easily and quickly using the personal device as a mediator. Seamless learning space refers to the collection of the various learning scenarios supported by one-to-one technology, offering a potential to extend formal learning time, usually limited to the classroom, into informal learning time (Chan, et.al. 2006). - Cooperative learning is a paradigm of collaboration aimed to reach a common goal, thus learning with and from each other. This approach is student-centred, with the teacher more peripheral as tutor where he can better communicate with the learners as an active participant in learning (Maresca, et.al. 2014). 3.2 Evolution in the view on personalized learning Over the last centuries personalized learning has been defined with different accents, a historical overview can be found on Wikipedia: • Students program their curriculum in order to meet their needs, interests and abilities; (Parkhurst and the Dalton Plan 1 , 19th century) – which links to self-regulated learning. • Expand the educational focus to creative activities and emotional and social development, (Winnetka Plan 2 , beginning 20 th century) – which links to independent learning • Learner should have the opportunity to freely choose a series of activities, already predisposed by the teacher (Claparède L’Ècole sur mesure 3 , 1920) – which again links to independent learning • A method whereby students are not advanced to a subsequent learning objective until they demonstrate proficiency with the current one (Bloom and the Mastery learning 4 (’50s-’60s) 1 http://www.dalton.org/philosophy/dalton_plan 2 http://schugurensky.faculty.asu.edu/moments/1919winnetka.html 3 http://www.unige.ch/fapse/SSE/teachers/maulini/mesure.html 4 http://www.education.com/reference/article/mastery-learning/
  11. 11. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 11 School on the Cloud D4.1 • Instruction on the base of the students’ requirements allowing them to work on course modules independently. It is an individually paced mastery oriented teaching method. (Keller within the Personalized System of Instruction 5 (’60s) • Problem solving oriented, with the teacher direction minimized. The teacher acts more as a facilitator encouraging self decision and self-control of the learner, more than delivering knowledge and information. (Kilpatrik “Project Method 6 ” (early 21st Century) - which combines aspects of independent and self-regulated learning. • Adjusting the pace, adjusting the approach, and connecting to the learner's interests and experiences. (National Educational Technology Plan, US) – which goes in the direction of self- directed learning. 3.3 A definition of personalized learning Every learner has his own learning method/skills (speed, approach, interest and experiences), so he should have the opportunity to expand his skills and knowledge, exercise and adjust their learning rhythm according to their interests in combination with the curriculum. As the protagonist of the learning process is the learner we should adapt to his previous learning and construct the learning process after that. It is of course useful to propose creative activities, use problem solving orienting... but the start point should be the student previous knowledge. Personalized learning is not only a matter of tailoring-curriculum, teaching and assessment to ‘fit’ the individual, but is a question of developing social practices that enable people to become all that they are capable of becoming. It is also about responsibility for learning, it concerns empowering learners to learn by considering their needs as individuals and planning their approaches to learning. It involves all forms of learning situations and environments but it concerns the needs of the individual. The balance between student's choice to meet his needs and preferences and an educational framework provided by the teacher to accomplish the educational goals is the optimum approach to teaching and learning. The basic idea of personalized learning is for learners to exercise ownership, responsibility and control over their experiences, rather than be constrained by centralised, instructor controlled learning based on the delivery of pre-packaged materials (McLoughlin & Lee, 2010, Verpoorten et al. 2009). ‘Participation’ is key to understanding personalized learning, being a personal process of meaning- making with each participant in any activity ‘constructing’ their own version of the process (Ainscow 2006). It is not individualised learning – although it may include it - where pupils sit alone, it means shaping teaching around the way different youngsters learn. It also doesn’t mean an abandonment of a national curriculum (OECD 2006). Some researchers see personalizing of learning as: the tailoring of pedagogy, curriculum and learning support to meet the needs and aspirations of individual learners irrespective of ability, culture or social status in order to nurture the unique talents of every pupil (Robinson & Sebba 2010). According to Verpoorten et al. (2009) personalized learning relies on three interrelated theories: • Constructivism: learning as a process in which persons actively construct knowledge, and competences through interacting with their environment • Reflective thinking: instructional practice should aim learning as well at the level understanding and use as at meta-levels of learning • Self-regulated learning focuses on the cognitive and communication processes through which learners control their learning Important is that learners do not only have access to material to read, websites to explore or assignments and tests to perform, but also to tools for monitoring these activities. 5 http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/152/233 6 http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v34n3/Knoll.html
  12. 12. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 12 School on the Cloud D4.1 Several dimensions are interconnected in the notion of personalized learning experiences. These dimensions can be structured along following core concepts: ownership, participation, diversity, regulation and reflection. Other research finds out that these core concepts are seldom defined, theoretically grounded or differentiated (Buchem et.al. 2011, see further). Personalized learning quite often implies the development of different kinds of organizing and presenting information about: - Situation-related aspects: the fixed components of the learning tasks (learning goals, resources, tasks, needed and trained skills, time management ...) - Self-related aspects: learning behaviours and achievements and personal learner information (marks and remarks, tasks completed, time spent, achieved learning goals ...) - Social-related aspects: covering social awareness clues (including comparison processes with data from peers) The LeadLab Project (Guglielman et.al. 2011) proposed formulation as joint proposal at the European level within the context of the NVAE – Non Vocational Adult Education. As the result of their research, a shared definition of personalization should include: - Involvement of the all dimensions of learner (cognitive, social, emotive); - Empowerment of awareness of the learning process; - Development of self-regulated learning process; - Co-design of the learning pathway and process; - Development of self-evaluation process; - Learning challenges instead of learning objectives; - Learning pathway instead of instructional curriculum or training program; - Achievable results are not predictable a priori. A comparison of the differences between individualized, personalized and self-organized learning is reflected in this table: Individualized learning is ….. Personalized learning is …. Self-organized learning is … Same objectives for all learners Different objectives for each learner Different objective for each learner Applying of differenced didactic strategies to achieve the key competences Applying of differenced didactic strategies to promote personal potential Learner takes ownership of their learning experience The educational curriculum is defined by the educational staff The learner actively participates in the construction of their own curriculum Improves reading comprehension, literacy, behaviour, language, creativity, and problem-solving abilities Valuing the cognitive dimension of the learner Valuing all dimensions of learner, not only the cognitive (emotional, social, life experience, etc.) Getting better at integrating what they already know into classroom discussions Valuing previous knowledge and competencies, formal and non- formal Valuing previous knowledge, competences, life and work skills, also informal Increased motivation to learn about more subjects and ideas Learner’s self-direction as an accessory skill Learner’s self direction as a fundamental skill Learner develops habits to become a lifelong learner Teacher has a key role Tutor has a key role Develop a more trusting relationship with teacher Sometimes guidance is necessary Learning which is created to the needs of the learner, set by the teacher Learning or organised and developed by the learner. Another reflection about the differences between personalization, differentiation and individualization is done by Bray & McClaskey (2015):
  13. 13. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 13 School on the Cloud D4.1 Personalization v Differentiation v Individualization Chart (Bray & McClaskey 2015) Although there are differences in defining personalized learning, all definitions and research agrees on these principles:: - Personalized learning starts with the learner and the learner is in the centre - The learner is active in designing their learning goals and processes - The learner decides how to access and acquire information, - The learner owns and takes responsibility of learning, thus more motivated and engaged in the learning process, - The learner owns the capacity for critical monitoring of learning outcomes - High quality teaching responsive to the different ways students achieve their best - Creating an education path that takes account of learner’s needs, interests and aspirations - Making a strong contribution to equity and social justice
  14. 14. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 14 School on the Cloud D4.1 4 e-learning, m-learning, i-learning, or u-learning? The introduction of information technology and communication for teaching (ITC) is an ongoing process that is adapted entirely in the context of the "Strategy for Rethinking Education" launched in 2012 by the European Commission. This strategy aims to develop transversal skills including IT, among European students and increase access to education through free online resources. ITC as a research tool helps students apprehend notions and analyze information. This allows a series of questions such as: where? what? and organization (why? how? relationship?). The challenge of a didactic process is to organize and support students’ questions. Thus, there is a need to model the processing of information in an educational in 4 steps. This is shown in the figure below. Caroline Leininger-Frézal, Maria Pigaki 2014 The general framework of the instructional design of the course is based on theories from the field of teaching/learning and adult education in university. More specifically, the presentation of the basic concepts of each target follows the cognitive theory Component Display Theory (CDT), according to which different forms of educational material should support the three performance stages, memorizing (presentation of concepts) Usage (application of concepts) and Search (use concepts to new situations). Moreover, the choice of the type of educational materials accompanying the three stages of performance is determined by the learning style of the learner as the staff learning styles significantly affect the educational outcome. Specifically, the model learning styles proposed by Honey and Mumford (1992) according to which there are four different learning styles, the Activist (Activist), the Reflective (Reflector), the Theorist (Theorist) and Pragmatic (Pragmatist). Based on this design, multiple perspectives and representations of each concept as developed, theoretical presentations, examples, exercises, activities using simulations of real situations, material exploration, group work, in order to meet the three performance levels and become the primary material will support alternative educational approaches for different learning styles. To implement personalized learning the learning paradigm must be adopted. According to research we can distinguish three or four types (if we take i-learning into account). 4.1 e-learning E-learning is a set of models, technologies and processes for the acquisition and use of knowledge through the use of information and computer technologies (Horton, 2006, Caporarello & Sarchioni, 2014), mostly through the use of VLEs (Virtual learning environments – see further) or MOOCs (Massive open online courses). The ‘e’ refers to an electronic component. The European Commission describes e-learning as “the use of Internet and new multimedia technologies to advance the the quality of learning by providing access to resources and services as well as enabling remote exchange and collaboration” (cited by Caporarello & Sarchioni, 2014). The introduction of information technology and communication for teaching (ITC) is an ongoing process that is adapted entirely in the context of the "Strategy for Rethinking Education" launched in 2012 by the European Commission. This strategy aims to develop transversal skills including IT, among European students and increase access to education through free online resources. Problematic situation (hypothesis) Data research Building an argument Produce results and evaluation Pre-model? Model gradually builds?
  15. 15. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 15 School on the Cloud D4.1 Although a common definition of e-learning does not exist, its main characteristics are accepted: - using standardized and developed computer technology - time and place independent - flexible in time-management - interactive and efficient - active participation - different teaching and learning styles possible - enhance collaborative learning through cognitive interaction among learners - organizational support Because of this it is often seen as an effective tool for distance learning. 4.2 i-learning In this regard, i-learning is an improved version of e-learning. I-learning using the e-learning tools but combined with the basic aspects of personalized learning. To reach this goal the existing VLEs should be redesigned towards real PLEs (Personal Learning Environments – see further). 4.3 m-learning Also m-learning or mobile-learning, using personal electronic devices, resides under e-learning, using Technology enhanced learning (TEL) educational applications. These are available on mobile devices and can be categorized into three main types: 1) an interface to a “main” desktop program 2) a standalone application running on the mobile device 3) a mobile device as an interface to a shared virtual space that resides on a server where the mobile device serves as a portal. Based on research and practical experience (Järvelä, OECD 2006), the best arguments for implementing these tools in learning are: - it increases authenticity and interest - the possibility to work virtual outside schools - share perspectives among students with different expertise - it facilitates the use of technology-supported inquiry approaches an problem-base learning models - it provides innovative ways on integrating “just-in-time” support and interaction in different learning contexts. 4.4 u-learning Recent technological development makes it even possible to think about ubiquitous learning environments (u-learning) that are able to sense the situation of learners, and to provide support adaptively. The background for this is the vision that in the nearby future humans will be surrounded via the internet of things (intelligent clothing, furniture, environment ...). The environment is expected to be aware of the presence of a person (the user) and to perceive the (learning) needs of that person, and subsequently respond intelligently to those needs, in a relaxed and unobtrusive manner (Vlădoiu 2011). A review of different research papers (Yahya et.al., 2010) summarized these characteristics: • Permanency: The information remains permanent (unless removed by the learner) • Accessibility: The information is everywhere and available to the learner • Immediacy: The information can be retrieved immediately by the learner • Interactivity: The learner can interact with peers, teachers, and experts through different media. • Context-awareness: The environment can adapt to the learners real situation to provide adequate information. For instance, when a student gets into the lab or stands in front of an instrument, the devices will sense and detect the situation of the student and transfer this information to the server. The student will get all related rules and procedures based on this transfer.
  16. 16. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 16 School on the Cloud D4.1 A comparison of e-learning (i-learning), m-learning and u-learning reveals the advantages of u- learning, according to Yahya et al. 2010, especially on these criteria. 4.5 Criticising e-learning But there is also criticism, especially on the more simplistic e-learning solutions, which makes possible in fact the old information transfer paradigm by taking particular pieces of information and making them available to the learners via the Internet (Vlădoiu 2011). In fact many organizations have developed an e-learning system only as a supplement to the traditional type of education (Caporarello & Sarchioni 2014). Also not all learners perceive e-learning systems the same way. A survey of students in Italy (Caporarello & Sarchioni 2014) reveals that 46% of the respondents look at e-learning as a valid instrument to improve their learning capabilities, 30% of the sample does not look favourably at e- learning claiming to prefer a face-to-face interaction between student and teacher. Further is mentioned that the three major obstacles to the adoption and usage of an e-learning system are in order of importance: 1. lower level of interaction with the teacher 2. connection problems and general reliability issues 3. lower level of emotional involvement. Concept of U-Learning (Kuo et al., 2007, cited in Yahya et.al. 2010) Comparison of Learning Paradigms (Yahya et.al. 2010)
  17. 17. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 17 School on the Cloud D4.1 When looking at the used specific technological tools it is remarkable that – besides the e-learning platform – videoconferences, podcasts, virtual classroom and e-books are not popular. Caporarello & Sarchioni 2014
  18. 18. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 18 School on the Cloud D4.1 5 Personalized learning through the use of technology 5.1 From VLEs to PLEs Digital-age students want an active learning experience that is social, participatory and supported by rich media. There is also a growing need to support and encourage learner control over the whole/entire learning process (Dron 2007). According to McLoughlin & Lee (2010) many social software tools offer the possibility to the learner to organise his/her own learning experience (with monitoring, collaborative working, questioning and self evaluation, various representations) and gives the learner a sense of ownership and control over his/her own learning and career planning. To enable this we need to redesign the existing course managements systems (CMSs) and virtual learning environments (VLEs) as they do not fully use and integrate the potential of social media. Although VLEs can be used to provide and track e-learning courses and enhance face-to-face instruction with online components, they are primarily used to automate the administration of learning by facilitating and then recording learner activity. In fact they are mostly a replica of the traditional classroom learning style, meaning they are content-centric. Many instructors just move all their teaching materials to the system where it is presented uniformly to all learners regardless of their background, learning styles and preferences (Al-Zoube 2009). Therefore personal learning environments (PLEs) have emerged as a concept associated with the adoption of a raft of Web 2.0 tools based on their needs and circumstances that serves to integrate essential learning outcomes (McLoughlin & Lee 2010). In this learner-centric learning places learners are expected to actively engage in the learning process to construct their own learning. (Al Zoube 2009). Teachers – although still responsible for learners’ learning – shift more towards the role of “tutor” who guides the learning process if needed. The concept of PLEs emerged from the discussions about CMSs and VLEs, and gained considerable attention through the publication of a diagram illustrating a future vision of VLEs by Scott Wilson (Buchem et.al. 2011). The Future VLE (by Scott Wilson), https://www.flickr.com/photos/elifishtacos/90944650/
  19. 19. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 19 School on the Cloud D4.1 Since that time numerous different conceptualisations and visualisations of Personal Learning Environments have been discussed and published. A collection of these can be viewed on 1 http://edtechpost.wikispaces.com/PLE+Diagrams. 5.2 Problem incorporating VLEs and PLEs In 2007-2008 a research project focussing on the implementation of personalised learning was held in the UK (Robinson & Sebba 2010). It came to following findings: • it was more common to find digital technologies being used to support personalizing learning where it had been initiated by staff and further developed by learners. • where learners led their own activities and took on aspects of the teacher’s role such as leading others, they were reported as remembering more about the activity. • if we are to encourage learners to be involved in leading and personalizing their learning through the use of digital technologies, then consideration must be given to the factors which help to facilitate and restrict such learning. • where learners had access to digital technologies, this increased the likelihood of learner- led/influenced personalized learning using such technologies • Where learners were engaged with, and had ownership of, digital technologies this was seen to be a key driving force which often resulted in increasing a school’s capacity to provide opportunities for learner-led/influenced personalized learning The driving and restraining forces which impact on learners’ access to digital technologies and their use of such technologies to personalise learning through learner-led/influenced activities. (Robinson & Sebba 2010) • Where schools provided support to encourage the use of digital technologies this tended to increased the extent to which technologies were used to personalise learning through learner led/influenced activities (Robinson, & Sebba 2010).
  20. 20. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 20 School on the Cloud D4.1 The driving and restraining forces which impact on the support provided by schools to encourage the use of digital technologies to personalised learning through learner-led/influenced activities. (Robinson & Sebba 2010) 5.3 Organizing a PLE In their research paper Buchem et.al. (2011) wanted to get an answer to the following questions: - What core categories and their properties should characterize a PLE? - How can these be mapped into from the activity theory framework? The PLE concept places the focus on the appropriation of different tools and resources by the learner, whereby the learner is situated within a social context which influences the way in which they use media, participate in activities and engage in communities. The perspective is the basic theorem of the Activity Theory (Engeström 2001). The activity triangle model representing an activity system combines the various components into a unified whole. Key components of an activity system (Engeström 2001)
  21. 21. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 21 School on the Cloud D4.1 From this perspective, focusing on the three aspects – personal (‘subject’), learning (‘tools) and environment (‘object’) – means disregarding the so-called ‘social basis’ of the activity system (rules, community and division of labour) which situates human activities in a broader context. The review by Buchem et.al. (2011) enabled to use the Activity Theory model to discover and define relationships between the central elements. Summary of PLE elements and their core dimensions (Buchem et.al. 2011) Their conclusion: “On the whole, we observed that the core concepts such as ownership, control, literacy, autonomy or empowerment are often mentioned but seldom defined, theoretically grounded or differentiated. This obscures the overall picture and understanding of PLEs.” (Buchem et.al. 2011)
  22. 22. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 22 School on the Cloud D4.1 6 Strategies for a good rethinking of pedagogy In order for personalized learning to come to fruition, students need not only to be able to choose and personalise what tools and content are available, but also to have access to the necessary scaffolding to support their learning (McLoughlin et.al. 2010) But this is not enough, both a pedagogic change and a greater personalisation of learning are essential for student centred, self regulated and independent learning. According to latest research, (cited in McLoughlin et.al. 2010, OECD 2006) pedagogy must: • ensure that learners are capable of making informed educational decisions; • see learners as active participants and co-producers of learning resources • diversify and recognise different forms of skills and knowledge; • see school and class organisation based around student progress • create diverse learning environments; and • include learner focused forms of feedback and assessment. The philosophy and ethos prevalent in the Web 2.0 world, in which we live, are highly incongruent with the control culture of education, where teacher-designed content and syllabi dominate. Linked to these principles is the concept of the PLE, defined as “a collection of tools, brought together under the conceptual notion of openness, interoperability and learner control”. The main aspects of PLEs are (McLoughlin et.al. 2010, OECD 2006, Al-Zoube 2009): • based on detailed knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the learner, meaning a pre- assessment is needed support for learners to set their own learning goals • curriculum choice and respect for students, allowing for breadth of study and personal relevance, and clear pathways through the system, this offering the ability to manage their own content • possibility to communicate with others in the process of learning • ability to join groups • provide a suitable environment to practice social skills • provide support for lifelong learning. 6.1 Pedagogical approaches of PLEs In his research Al-Zoube (2009) presented three pedagogical approaches of PLEs. 1) Self-regulated pedagogical approach The learner uses a set of loosely joined services – ensuring a modular development – to set and achieve his learning goals. Example is Google Apps for Education
  23. 23. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 23 School on the Cloud D4.1 This PLE is very much learner controlled and suited to self-directed learning 2) Self-regulated and teacher-led pedagogical approach This pedagogical approach - supporting formal and informal learning - strives to facilitate empowerment of both learners and teachers, while producing personalized learning experiences. Examples are most MOOCs. 3) Self-regulated, teacher-led and personalized pedagogical approach This smart PLE is able to learn the habits of an individual user and remember them so that the user’s experience is less repetitive and fixed. The iClass project, a project initiated to develop an intelligent cognitive-based open learning system and environment, adapted to individual learners' needs and ensuring their take-up in the education sector at a European level, was a good try, but after the lifespan of the project (2004-2008) it faded away. Many VLEs like Moodle and Blackboard provide the possibility to add third party widgets to be incorporated by users. 6.2 Monitoring and control As mentioned earlier it is important for personalized learning that learners do not only have access to material to read, websites to explore or assignments and tests to perform, but also to tools for
  24. 24. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 24 School on the Cloud D4.1 monitoring these activities, the learner needs to have control. In VLEs three types of control can be distinguished: • System control: represented by the design, look and feel and functions of the VLE • Organizational control: all restrictions, customizations and regulations that are specific for a specific user type of the VLE • Teacher control: often called instructional design: type and availability of learning material, availability and arrangement of tools learners can use But in PLEs we have an extra: Learner control: reflecting the way through which learners can take control over their learning process. Personalized learning does not require that learners have all control over their learning environment, but some control, e.g. providing a monitored and analysed overview over the learning. Therefore a good PLE needs user tracking in so called personal information. This is not only information about the learner, it also comprises contextual information that characterizes the learners’ situation, e.g. information resulting from monitoring a learner’s activity, achievement ratio of a learning goal ... In PLEs learners should have full control over their personal information, while in VLEs learners have often limited or no access and control over it. This is particularly the case for tracked information (Verpoorten et al. 2009). Especially users interactions that are recorded with the intention to store them for further processing about the uses should be accessible for the learner. But this information is for most VLE’s only accessible for the administrators and teachers, not learners. Gismo, a tool managing the visualization of data tracked in Moodle is an example (http://gismo.sourceforge.net/). There are only a few systems that make tracking information available to learners. These systems can be a form of navigation support. Research showed that personal information can serve as feedback that helps learners to reflect on the learning process. Information from user tracking supports learners to examine their position in the learning process and to regulate their learning activity.
  25. 25. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 25 School on the Cloud D4.1 7 Discussion onto the i-learner of the future 7.1 The learning process In the 21st century a fundamental transformation of education is needed to address the new challenges and competences required. As mentioned in the report of WG4 (Koutsopoulos et.al. 2015) several studies have shown that future developments, related to required skills and competences, will changes schools over the next 20 years. “Learning to learn” is very important: cloud based application can foster this competence (Key competences for lifelong learning 2011) Among these changes the most important are: • Learning will Focus on Four basic Competences: learning how to read, how to write, how to do arithmetic calculations and be efficient in using the cloud to access all forms of educational material, based on their requirements without regard to where these are coming from or how they are delivered. . • Self-organized learning will become more important. Learning will be Tailored to the Needs of Individuals: in the future, in order to encourage individual learners to develop their own talents and interests, the educational approaches should be tailored to their individual needs, learning styles and preferences • Learning will be Based on a New Vision: A broader concept than the previous one was introduced by Redecker et.al. (2011),who have suggested that a three axis vision of personalization, collaboration and informalization (informal learning) will be at the core of learning in the future. • Learning will be Active and Connected to Real Life. Online World and real world are not two separate entities anymore: they are conceived as two parallel, interrelated dimensions that coexist in everyday life (Dominici 2014). Game based and competition based learning exactly according to the needs of the moment will emphasize dual focus – personal and professional development. • Learning will be Towards Open, Flexible and Networked Relationships, without barriers to students in order to participate everywhere in social, cultural and educational environments. Individualized learning processes shall address different types of learners and offer accessible and usable materials, including movies, television broadcasts, interactive and multimedia content for students with very different prerequisites for learning. • Online Learning will Continue to Gain Acceptance, as it is compared with traditional education cheaper, time and place-independant and reflects the way youngsters see the world today. • Distance Learning will Continue to Gain Acceptance • Hybrid Learning - using both the physical and the virtual learning environments - will grow in importance • Non- Formal Learning will Continue to Gain Acceptance, as more people will connect to the cloud at time and place appropriate to them • Network learning will determine the design of a curriculum 7.2 The learning material Despite the initial efforts to digitalize education still faces three key issues: skills gaps; low return on investment (ROI); and the need for innovation, entrepreneurship, and job creation. According to Banerjee & Belson (2015) ubiquitous access to learning content has only intensified the need for effective, efficient methods of delivery and utilization. Todays advanced technologies make it possible to personalize and securely deliver instructional content. Khan Academy’s “anytime,
  26. 26. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 26 School on the Cloud D4.1 anywhere” educational model delivers personalized learning to students worldwide and even provides diagnostics and dashboards to teachers. For this new provision of learning material Banerjee & Belson (2015) see three “connectors” as fundamental to digital education: • Connector 1. An integrated digital education ecosystem: this is a collaborative network that instircts and guides with In the center the learner, getting support from formal education participants (parents, teachers, peers, and administrators) as well as from non-formal education participants (mentors, potential employers. • Connector 2. An integrated student learning life cycle from school to the workplace, connecting in-classroom and real-world learning in a way that is tailored to the needs, learning styles, passion, and potential of each student. • Connector 3. Integrated technology solutions: ubiquitous learning that draws upon individual technology strengths and competencies to partner and offer integrated solutions. The material should include in each course the following knowledge units: (i) show fully the important concepts of a target following the proposed instructional design,
  27. 27. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 27 School on the Cloud D4.1 (ii) summarize the prerequisite concepts (iii) defining the relevant concepts. In addition, educational material should be enriched from: brief descriptions of contents, keywords, recap, Literature?? resources, self-assessment exercises. Cloud based schools should be free to choose the contents of their materials. In Italy e.g. there are schools that are writing their own books (both in traditional and in digital versions) 7 The educational material of this kind is a demanding process that should be undertaken by experienced instructors in the academic and teaching. The development of training material should be followed by the following steps: i. Determination of cognitive objectives. Degradation of the subject in which concepts the student should be aware of any cognitive task. ii. Hierarchy concepts related to the objective: to identify the key concepts that the student should know to meet the objective to prior knowledge required for the study of important concepts of the target (prerequisite concepts), but also the least important concepts but which relate to major concepts (concepts) iii. Identify specific expected results for each major sense of purpose. According to the theory adopted a hierarchy of expected results in three performance levels: Remember, Use Search, development of educational material: (i) the important concepts required multiple representations, which cover the three performance levels but also alternative ways of presenting that cover ?? ?? requirements of learners with different preferences (learning style) such as text, examples, exercises, activities in simulations of real situations, exploration, etc .., (ii) (ii) for the prior concepts required a presentation that focuses on the relationship of the important concept, and (iii) (iii) the relevant concepts defined in a glossary. That means: • Organizing of curriculum sequencing • Planning the content • Planning delivery staff depending learner 7.3 The learning place The learning process will be taken out of schools – known today as a building or place where the transmission of knowledge and information takes place. Future schools will be treated as multifunctional and multidimensional structures including public places (science center, interactive museum, technological parks, nature) as well as virtual reality (educational resources available online, video channels, blogs written by experts, e-learning and webinar portals, etc.). Inside there open spaces are needed that are accessible for everyone, with the integration of green space (we can not allow students to lose contact with nature). Naturally everywhere internet should be accessible. Impression of the classroom of the future by architect Chris Bosse 8 7 http://www.bookinprogress.org/ 8 https://the-dots.co.uk/chrisbosse/portfolio/classroom-of-the-future/174614
  28. 28. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 28 School on the Cloud D4.1 In a i-learner school typically are: • Time and place for learning processes open and no more predefined as today. • Deliberate and meaningful use of differential instructional materials • Encouragement and facilitation of active and student directed learning when confronted with assignments on varying levels of difficulty. • Mutually agreed and effective cooperation of regular and special education teachers • The alignment of general classroom instruction and diagnostically founded, individually prescribed and intensive instruction in cases of special needs. Due to the fact that self- directed learning means a big challenge for persons with learning difficulties, their teachers have to pay special attention to train this skill. 7.4 The learner Compared with today’s situation the i-learner will behave differently: • He will have the ownership of his learning experience, learning content exactly fitting the general conditions, requirements and pace of the learner, adjusted to the needs of this specific moment. • Individual approach with respect to achieved level of education, non-formal place, but also high emphasis on the independent development of each learner (measurable results). • pupils/students (learners in general) will not be treated as a trainee involved in formal education only. This concept is extended to life-long-learners in non-formal and informal education as well. Student is also a person who performs learning in the formula of home education, as well as people participating in the self-study, working on their own development on various courses, trainings and workshops. This concept takes on particular importance in the context of a return to the student - master relationship. • I-learner and i-learning should be a process where you get to pick your own content, to your own interest and even your own teacher, yet to have a governing body that allows you to formalize your path. Personalization at all possible levels. To reach this the i-learner will need the required attitudes and skills. 7.4.1 Attitudes for the i-learner: Changes in the education system demand also transformation of the learners approach. As mentioned by Steve Wheeler 9 in his blog: “children of the future will need to learn for life, learning to be flexible, adaptable and open to changes that might - for our current generation at least - be perceived as a threat. (…) Learners of the future will need to see change as an opportunity, and will need the requisite skills to take the opportunities that are presented and turn them into positive and sustainable outcomes”. To reach this fully these attitudes are needed: • motivation: willingness to learn new things, passion driven, joy of discovery, willing to keep learning, unlearning and relearning • independence • persistence • creative, • innovative, • critical thinking, • problem solving • demanding, • challenging, • confident and comfortable in both giving and receiving feedback, 9 Steve Wheeler is Associate Professor of Learning Technologies at Plymouth University. He researches into technology supported learning and distance education, with particular emphasis on the pedagogy underlying the use of social media and Web 2.0 technologies, His blog: http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.com/2011/03/2020-learners.html.
  29. 29. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 29 School on the Cloud D4.1 • capable for self-evaluation, • embrace failure and learn to fail more; the attitude of attempting to succeed and to fear failure is the wrong way around. 7.4.2 Skills It is not about different skills but about improving certain skills: • Self-organization skills • time management • discipline • basic ICT skills, general knowledge and basic knowledge about the e-learning tools. • management of information and knowledge skill, • communication skill, • leadership skills • presentation skills • responsibility for being involved in education • identification of own learning style Development of key skills which are often domain-specific. Knowledge construction and knowledge sharing form the core processes of learning; and these are connected to the development of higher- order knowledge and skills: - The ability to evaluate - To classify - To Make inferences - To Define problems - To Reflect (Järvelä, OECD 2006). Collaborative learning and knowledge building – new learning environments in education and the workplace are often based on shared expertise. Pedagogical models, tools and practices are being developed to support collaborative learning and reciprocal understanding. Examples are: - Progressive inquiry: this model guides students to generate their own research problems and intuitive theories to search for explanatory information. This is often used with collaborative learning. - Problem-based learning (PBL): this model is a collaborative, case-centred and learner- directed method in which students learn about a subject through the experience of solving an open-ended problem. They have to come up with an own hypothesis, evaluate and gather information to solve the problem. - Project-based learning: this model engages students in real scientific work, solving real-world problems, thus seeing the real impact as motivation for learning. New models of assessment on which personalised learning is seen to depend, such as authentic assessment, direct assessment of performance and digital portfolios. Digital portfolios are very important since they can activate metacognitive processes and, in so doing, they can foster student autonomy in learning. New core questions here are: - What do learners understand about their studies - How can learners generate information about how much they have learned and how their knowledge is changing? - What should be evaluated? - What is the relation between formal and non-formal education in terms of assessment.. 7.4.3 Position of teacher and learner The i-learners will need to be able to design their own learning spaces, create their own content and learn from it. They will be less reliant on didactic and trans missive forms of teaching and will turn instead to more independent learning from the vast storehouse of knowledge we know as the World Wide Web. This does not preclude some form of 'schooling' however. The teacher's role will change to
  30. 30. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 30 School on the Cloud D4.1 accommodate these new needs. Teachers will become facilitators, mediators, co-authors and co- producers of content, and ultimately, companion travellers with children on their road to better learning. It is already happening in some schools. Teachers are the key: new learning environments require complex instructional designs and teachers will need to be strong in communication and collaboration. It is through them that the above areas will be mediated and promoted, including those of learning skills and new forms of assessment. We can underline here the importance of initial and in service teacher training in order to fill the intergenerational gap: digital divide and cultural divide are concrete problems that can be solved only through solid teacher competences.
  31. 31. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 31 School on the Cloud D4.1 8 Conclusions There are many different interpretations of personalized learning, but all definitions and research agrees on the principle with the learner in the centre, who is active in designing learning goals and processes, who takes responsibility of learning, and thus is more motivated and engaged in the learning process, who owns the capacity for critical monitoring of his learning outcomes and decides how to access and acquire information. To implement personalized learning the learning paradigm must be adopted. We need high quality teaching responsive to the different ways students achieve their best, creating an education path that takes account of learner’s needs, interests and aspirations. In the 21st century a fundamental transformation of education is needed to address the new challenges and competences required. For long time e-learning seemed the best solution. E-learning is a set of models, technologies and processes for the acquisition and use of knowledge through the use of information and computer technologies. But the implementation was not so good. In fact many organizations have developed an e-learning system only as a supplement to the traditional type of education using a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) that in fact is merely a replacement of the traditional classroom. Research showed major obstacles in this form of e-learning: lower level of interaction with the teacher, connection problems and general reliability issues and lower level of emotional involvement. Therefore i-learning - using the e-learning tools but combined with the basic aspects of personalized learning – is the most successful. To reach this goal the existing VLEs should be redesigned towards real PLEs (Personal Learning Environments), a learner-centric learning places where learners are expected to actively engage in the learning process to construct and manage their own learning, with possibility to communicate with others in the process of learning in a suitable environment to practice social skills. Teachers – although still responsible for learners’ learning – shift more towards the role of “tutor” who guides the learning process if needed. A good pedagogic approach must also be included into the PLEs, including learner focused forms of feedback and assessment in so called personal information. This is not only information about the learner, it also comprises contextual information that characterizes the learners’ situation, e.g. information resulting from monitoring a learner’s activity, achievement ratio of a learning goal ... The implementation of this for the i-learner of the future will have impact on different aspects of education. The learning process will focus on four basic competences: learning how to read, how to write, how to do arithmetic calculations and be efficient in using the cloud to access all forms of educational material, It will be active and connected to Real Life. Self-organized, distance and non-formal learning will become more important, towards open, flexible and networked relationships, without barriers to students in order to participate everywhere in social, cultural and educational environments. Individualized learning processes shall address different types of learners and offer accessible and usable materials, including movies, television broadcasts, interactive and multimedia content for students with very different prerequisites for learning. The learning material should be personalized and securely deliver instructional content, including in each course the following knowledge units: the important concepts of a target following the proposed instructional design, summary of the prerequisite concepts and the definition of the relevant concepts. The learning place in future schools will be treated as multifunctional and multidimensional structures including public places as well as virtual reality, with open spaces and the integration of green space. Time and place for learning processes are open and no more predefined as today, with deliberate and meaningful use of differential instructional materials, encouraging and facilitating active and student directed learning when confronted with assignments on varying levels of difficulty. The i-learner will behave differently. He will have the ownership of his learning experience, learning content exactly fitting the general conditions, requirements and pace of the learner, adjusted to the needs of this specific moment. To reach this fully these attitudes are needed: motivation, independence, persistence creative,
  32. 32. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 32 School on the Cloud D4.1 innovative, critical thinking, problem solving, demanding, challenging, confident and comfortable in both giving and receiving feedback, capable for self-evaluation, embrace failure and learn to fail more. No new skills are needed, but certain should be improved: Self-organization skills, time management, discipline, basic ICT skills, management of information and knowledge skill, communication skill, leadership skills, presentation skills, responsibility for being involved in education, identification of own learning style. New models of assessment on which personalised learning is seen to depend, such as authentic assessment, direct assessment of performance and digital portfolios. Teachers are the key: new learning environments require complex instructional designs and teachers will need to be strong in communication and collaboration. It is through them that the above areas will be mediated and promoted, including those of learning skills and new forms of assessment.
  33. 33. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 33 School on the Cloud D4.1 9 References Ainscow, M. (2006). Responding to the challenge of learner diversity: A briefing paper for the Teaching and Learning in 2020 Review. University of Manchester Faculty of Education. Al-Zoube, M. (2009), E-Learning on the Cloud. International Arab Journal of e-Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, June 2009, pp. 58-64 Banerjee, P.M., Belson, G. (2015). Digital education 2.0, from content to connections. Deloitte Review Issue 16. http://dupress.com/articles/future-digital-education-technology/ Bray, B., McClaskey, K. (2015). Make Learning Personal. The What, Who, WOW, Where, and Why. Corwin, 288 p. Buchem, I., Attwell, G., Torres, R. (2011). Understanding Personal Learning Environments: Literature review and synthesis through the Activity Theory lens. http://journal.webscience.org/658/ Caporarello, L., Sarchioni, G. (2014). E-learning: therecipe for success. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Sociey, Vol 10, N° 1. http://www.je-lks.org/ojs/index.php/Je-LKS_EN/article/view/885/863 Chan, T., Roschelle, J., Hsi, S., Kinshuk, Sharples, M., Brown, T. (2006). One-to-one technology- enhanced learning: an opportunity for global research collaboration. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning Vol. 1, No. 1 (2006), pp. 3–29 Dominici, P., Dominici, P., Dentro la società interconnessa. Prospettive etiche per un nuovo ecosistema della comunicazione, Franco Angeli, Milano, 2014 Dron, J. (2007), Designing the undesignable: Social software and control. Educational Technology & Society, Vol 10(3), pp. 60-71 http://www.ifets.info/journals/10_3/5.pdf Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 14, No. 1. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13639080020028747 European Parliament and the Council (2011). Key competences for lifelong learning. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV:c11090 Guglielman, E. (coord.) (2011). Leading Elderly and Adult Development – LAB. Final Report - Public Part, Learning Community Srl Grundtvig Multilateral Project http://leadlab.euproject.org/ Hewitt, D. (2008). Understanding Effective Learning: Strategies for the Classroom. Open University Press. Honey, P., Mumford, A. (1992). The Manual of Learning Styles, Peter Honey Publications, 94 p. Järvelä, S. (2006). Personalised Learning? New Insights into Fostering Learning Capability. Personalising Education, OECD/CERI, http://www.oecd.org/site/schoolingfortomorrowknowledgebase/themes/demand/personalisedlearningn ewinsightsintofosteringlearningcapacity.htm Horton, W. (2006). E-Learning by Design. Pfeiffer & Company, 640 p.
  34. 34. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 34 School on the Cloud D4.1 Koutsopoulos, K., Ciaperoni, S., Kotsanis, Y. (2015). A Review of Cloud-based Features and Methodologies. School on the Cloud Network, Working Group 4, Del. 5.1. http://schoolonthecloud.eu Kuo, F-R., Hwang, G-J., Chen, Y-J. & Wang, S-L. (2007). Standards and Tools for Context-Aware Ubiquitous Learning. Proceedings of Seventh IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2007), cited in Yahya et.al. (2010) http://csdl.computer.org/comp/proceedings/icalt/2007/2916/00/29160704.pdf Lee, M., McLoughlin, C. (2010). Personalized and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2010, 26(1), pp. 28-43 Leininger-Frézal, C., Pigaki, M. (2014). Preparatory work for the attendance in Porto WG3, Unpublished paper. Maresca, P., Guercio, A., Stanganelli, L., Arndt, T. (2014). Experiences in collaborative learning. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Sociey, Vol 10, N° 3. http://www.je-lks.org/ojs/index.php/Je-LKS_EN/article/view/961/909 McLoughlin, C., Lee, M.J.W. (2010), Personalized and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasion Journal of Educational Technology, Vol 26(1), pp. 28-43 Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R., & Baumgartner, L. (2007). Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide (3rd ed.) New York: Wiley. Mitra, S. (2015). SOLE Toolkit, How to Bring Self-Organized Learning Environments to Your Community, https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/school-in-the-cloud-production- assets/toolkit/SOLE_Toolkit_Web_2.6.pdf OECD (2006), Personalising Education, Schooling for Tomorrow, OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264036604-en Redecker, C., Leis, M., Leendertse, M., Punie, Y., Gijsbers, G., Kirschner, P., Stoyanov S., and Hoogveld., B., 2011. The Future of Learning: Preparing for Change Report, Brussels, European Commission Institute for Prospective Technological studies, http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC66836.pdf Robinson, C., Sebba, J. (2010), Personalizing learning through the use of technology. Computers & Education 54 (2010), pp. 767–775, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.021 Seel, N. (Ed.) (2012). Encyclopaedia of the Sciences of Learning. SpringerScience+Business Media LLC, 4300 p. Verpoorten, D., Glahn, C., Kravcik, M., Ternier S., Specht, M. (2009), Personalisation of Learning in Virtual Learning Environments. Learning in the Synergy of Multiple Disciplines, 4th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2009 Nice, France, September 29–October 2, 2009 Proceedings, pp. 52-66 Vlădoiu, M. (2011), U-learning scenarios within context aware ubiquitous learning environments, www.arpapress.com/Volumes/Vol8Issue2/IJRRAS_8_2_08.pdf Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personalized_learning Yahya, S., Ahmad, E.A, Abd Jalil, K. (2010). The definition and characteristics of ubiquitous learning: A discussion. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 2010, Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp. 117-127, http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/include/getdoc.php?id=4843
  35. 35. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 35 School on the Cloud D4.1 10 Further reading Adorni, G., Coccoli, M., Torre, I. (2012). Semantic Web and Internet of Things Supporting Enhanced Learning. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Sociey, Vol 8, N° 2. http://www.je-lks.org/ojs/index.php/Je-LKS_EN/article/view/606/597 Attwell, G (2007). Personal Learning Environments - the future of eLearning? eLearning Papers Vol 2, Nº 1 • January 2007, pp. 1-8 Beckman, K. , Bennetta, S., Lockyer, L. (2014), Understanding students’ use and value of technology for learning. Learning, Media and Technology, Butoi, A., Tomai, N., Mocean, L. (2013), Cloud-Based Mobile Learning. Informatica Economică vol. 17, no. 2/2013, pp. 27 – 40 Coquidé, M. et.al..(2008). A toolkit for the European citizen. The implementation of Key Competences. Challenges and opportunities. Consortium of Institutions for Development and Research in Education in Europe (CIDREE) http://www.cidree.be De Cupere, S. (ed.) (2015). Presentations on the impact of Cloud-based teaching and teacher education on teachers and trainers. School on the Cloud Network, Working Group 2, Del. 3.1. http://schoolonthecloud.eu Donert, K., Bonanou, H. (eds.) (2014). Education on the Cloud 2014: State of the Art. School on the Cloud Network, Working Group 1, Del. 6.4a. http://schoolonthecloud.eu Donert, K., Kotsanis, Y. (eds.) (2015). Education on the Cloud 2015: State of the Art Case Studies. School on the Cloud Network, Working Group 1, Del. 6.4b. http://schoolonthecloud.eu Giovannella, C. (2014). Smart learning eco-systems: “fashion” or “beef”? Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Sociey, Vol 10, N° 3 http://www.je-lks.org/ojs/index.php/Je-LKS_EN/article/view/971/901 Grigoriadou M., Papanikolaou K., Cotronis Y., Velentzas Ch., Filokyprou G. (1999). Designing and Implementing a Web-based course, In Proc. of Int. Conf. of Computer Based Learning In Science, Enschede, Netherlands, H5. Grigoriadou, M. and Papanikolaou, K. (2000°. Learning Environments on the Web: The Pedagogical Role of the Educational Material. Themes in Education, 2. Leader Books. Greece. Gygi, K. (1991). Recognizing the symptoms of hypertext and what to do about it. In B. Laurel (ed), The Art of Human Computer Interface Design. Reading, MA: Addsion-Wesley Engeström, Y. Miettinen, R., Punamäki, R. (Eds.) (1999). Perspectives on activity theory New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 480 p. Harris, J., Spina, N., Ehrich, L., Smeed, J. (2013), Literature review: Student-centred schools make the difference,. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 28 p. Hummel, H., Manderveld, J., Tattersall, C., Koper, R. (2004), Educational modelling language and learning design: new opportunities for instructional reusability and personalized learning. International Journal of Learning Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2004, pp. 115-126 Jakob, K., Müller, D., Näf, U., Tanghetti, J., Treier, R., Tscherter, V., Vogt, T. (2014). Strategie zur Integration digitaler Medien in die gymnasiale Bildung an der Kantonsschule Solothurn. KSSO | Projektgruppe Digitale Zukunft
  36. 36. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 36 School on the Cloud D4.1 Kessels, J. (2013), The Future of Education in Flanders. The school - an attractive place to learn and work in 2030? Koning Boudewijn Stichting, http://www.kbs- frb.be/publication.aspx?id=308495&langtype=1033 Kroop, S., Berthold, M., Nussbaumer, A., Albert, D. Supporting Self-Regulated Learning in Personalized Learning Envrionments, http://www.role-project.eu/ Kyriazis, D., Voulodimos, A., Gogouvitis, S., Varvarigou, T. (2013). Data Intensive Storage Services for Cloud Environments. Limongelli, C., Sciarrone, F., Vaste, G. (2011), Personalized e-learning in Moodle: the Moodle_LS System. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society Vol. 7, n. 1, January 2011, pp. 49-58 http://www.je-lks.org/ojs/index.php/Je-LKS_EN/article/view/487 Redecker, C., Ala-Mutka, K. Bacigalupo, M., Ferrari, A., Punie, Y. (2009), Learning 2.0: The Impact of Web 2.0 Innovations on Education and Training in Europe. Final Report Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=2899 Sebba, J., Brown, N., Steward, S., Galton, M., James, M. (2007). An Investigation of Personalized Learning Approaches used by Schools. University of Sussex Department for education and skills Research Report RR843 Smith, F. (2014). EDUCAUSE 2014: Online Learning Could Fundamentally Change Role of Universities. http://www.edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2014/09/educause-2014-online-learning- could-fundamentally-change-role-universities Specht, M., How can tablet technology change learning and teaching? Welten institute Research centre for learning, teaching and technology Open universiteit Nederland http://portal.ou.nl/en/web/topic-mobile-learning/home Stephanidis C., Paramythis A., Karagiannidis C., Savidis A. (1997). Supporting Interface Adaptation: The AVANTI Web-Browser. In Proc. of the 3rd ERCIM Workshop on User Interfaces for All, Obernai, France. Vassileva J. (1997). Dynamic course generation on the WWW. In Proc. of Int. Conf. Artificial Intelligence in Education Weld, D.S., Adar E., Chilton L., Hoffmann, R., Horvitz, E., Koch, M., Landay, J., Lin, D.H., Mausam (2012). Personalized Online Education — A Crowdsourcing Challenge, Human Computation Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Technical Report WS-12-08.
  37. 37. 543221–LLP–1–2013–1–GR-KA3- KA3NW 37 School on the Cloud D4.1 School on the Cloud: Deliverable D4.1

×