Vygotsky and Personal Learning Environments

Posted on October 1, 2009 by Graham Attwell

I have a 18 year old intern student, Jo Turner-Attwell, working for me. When I was in Vienna at the ECER conference, I left her the task of looking at Vygotky’s work in relation to Personal Learning Environments. This is part of the research we are undertaking in the Mature-ip project. And here is her summary. Pretty good start I think!

“Vygotsky died in 1934, almost a century ago, however his theories are becoming more relevant than they ever were during the course of his live. In particular the Zone of Proximal Development and the theories developed from this idea are more important than ever before. In addition to this his strong themes of the importance of social interaction and learning with assistance are being more closely looked at.

The zone of proximal development is the area between what an individual can achieve on their own and what they can achieve with assistance. Vigotsky’s definition is ‘the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers’. It is easy to understand through the idea of school text books. Those that are not too hard and not too easy, so challenging whilst not being beyond a students capabilities, are the optimal level of difficulty and right in the zone of proximal development. Vygotsky believed that learning shouldn’t follow development, but rather should lead it. A student should constantly be reaching slightly beyond their capabilities rather than working within them.

The method of scaffolding has been developed from Vgotsky’s theories. This is the concept that teachers or trainers, should simply assist their student until they are ready to act alone. A good example of this is a bike, moving from stabilisers, to someone running behind, to riding alone. This overlaps with the concept of a zone of proximal development, where some forms of scaffolding work for some people and not for others. Zones of proximal development vary and often different types of scaffolding are needed to reach the same goal. Vygotsky’s theories suggest students should lead their learning and teachers simply assist and rather than judging students on what they know in standardised tests, learning should be done through looking closely at their zone of proximal development. This allows learning to be developed around the needs of the learner, rather than learners trying to fit their needs into current standardised curriculums. This is particularly important as the current examination system can fail to support students who struggle in examination conditions, or excel in the practical side of learning.

This links in well with the concept of Personal Learning Environments or PLEs. The idea that the student themselves creates a virtual space to manage their own learning, whilst allowing room for social networking as a support system. This could combine the informal areas of learning with a more academic e-portfolio type system. This in theory is a fantastic idea, particularly in the way of social networking, which I do think it is important teachers begin to recognise more as a good teaching support method. However I do believe that this would have to be specific to formal learning. Types of informal learning would continue on separate social networking sites where students could interact privately among themselves. During my A Level studies it was not uncommon for teachers to assist their students through current informal online social networking systems as teachers began to take on a more friend-like role. However for my 14 year old sister this sort of student teacher relationship would be unthinkable. Not because I feel it would be inappropriate but more because I know that she would see it as an invasion of her privacy. This need for privacy in addition to support I believe would also exist within employer and employee relationships. This can clearly be seen from current issues of employers judging people’s employability on their facebook sites. I know I personally present myself differently upon my facebook site to the way I like to be seen in my work environment, but still feel I benefit from areas where I can communicate with my employer online, currently I use skype. Therefore I believe there is the need to keep formal learning environments and informal learning environments apart. Limiting the room for PLEs to grow.

A more significant problem I had was how one standardised PLE system could be used to support different types of students, particularly those who were better with practical studies. If the idea of a Personal Learning Environment was that an individual invented it, then how could teachers assist with the development of this? How could it be standardised? Also surely teaching this would turn it into formal education and would students still see it as their own space, and could teachers cope with only having access to certain areas? How could student that need more help receive that help through a similar model to a student that needed less?

However this is only one area where I feel that Vgotsky’s theories are relevant. I believe that judging students on their zone of proximal development and their potential for learning could allow students that struggle under exam pressure and to work within time limits to receive the grades they deserve. I know many students far smarter than myself who when put in an exam situation struggled and received lower grades than me. My mind being better suited to the remembering of large amounts of data, rather than me necessarily understanding the work better. When first asked the question of how we could measure this I drew a blank. But in fact part of Vygotsky’s theories is less capable students being shown things by more capable students, therefore why couldn’t students understanding be measured on their ability to convey the information they have learnt, maybe even after being shown how by a more able other. Allowing a student to reach the top of their Zone Of Proximal development. In my own admission this also has its flaws in that some of the most intelligent people struggle with teaching and I’m no educational expert so do not have the answers to these flaws. However this did lead me towards ideas of widening the way people are assessed, meaning ongoing assessment of a students progress and a students ability teach could simply make up parts of achieving a grade along with traditional examinations and coursework. If informal learning is as important as formal learning varying the way students are assessed can only work in their favour. However this does again lead into difficulties, as with anything, in that students may receive closer grades, and it may be difficult to differentiate from students who previously would have been placed in very different catorgories.

Also at the root of many of the differentiation of students who may excel in informal learning but not in formal is the subjects that are classified as worth studying. What is worth learning? I found this question upon one of the sites on which Vygotsky’s work was studied and it made me think. School curriculums are so very narrow in comparison with the potential in university courses where the opportunities of what to study are endless. Technology in particular I feel is under represented. When I first came to Pontydysgu I had no idea what a learning platform or PLE were and couldn’t work many of the standard systems on a Mac. These technological systems seen at the forefront of education are barely heard about within education systems. In a technological age I cannot help but wonder why this sort of important knowledge is not being taught, why students aren’t studying the more complex area of technology. We use technology everyday, probably know more than many of our teachers, yet it is not part of any standardised curriculums, it is all informal. I had to quickly learn how to edit audio and video, work a spreadsheet, funnily enough mainly through scaffolding techniques. Audio and video in particular is the kind of technology that only my peers who learnt informally would be able to do. This is most likely because of the lack of knowledge of teachers, not as a criticism of them but rather an emphasis on the fact that the technology we use so often today has mostly come about since many of them finished learning. This to me suggests the need for some sort of lifelong learning system, which again the PLE can support. Although the problems of standardising appear again, there is clearly a need for the general population to have a way to keep up to date with fast changing technologies as technology is moving on before it has the opportunity to be properly implemented. Even in my sixthform a student himself bought in a wireless rooter due to the lack of one, so that students could use their laptops and access the school network. Although moving a long way from Vgotsky the roots in his theories can still be seen in that social interaction is needed for this sort of technology to be fully accessible to everyone. Different people will need different methods to help them grasp these sort of technological systems, particularly as I believe teachers would struggle as much as, if not more, than students.”

Going mobile

Posted on September 21, 2009 by Graham Attwell

Some twelve years or so ago I was at a conference iN hong Kong. One of the sponsored presentations was by a local elearning company who demonstrated their mobile learning platform. I was totally sceptical. The screen was to small I said, no-one would want to learn on a phone.

I was wrong. The thing the Hong Kong developers had got right was the idea that learning happens in context – in their case learning how to play Badminton – and the phone could allow access to learning in real time in any environment. What they got wrong was the lack of any real interaction – this was just a series of very short videos. What has changed is social software allowing interaction between people using mobile devices. Last week I had a meeting in a bar by the sea in Crete. We had one laptop, two ipods and an iphone. The internet cafe had a wireless connection and we were able to go on a virtual tour of a proposed confernce venue through the safari browser and then book our venue through skype. In this case the context was that a group of us from five different countries were in the same place and we wanted to work together.

Over the summer I have been working with colleagues from the Mature project and with Mark van Harmelen on the idea of a mobile PLE based on Mark’s mPLE software. The more I have worked on this, the more I am convinced that mobile devices are integral to the idea of a PLE. But they also provide a challenge, not just to traditional course based education, but to ‘traditional’ notions of educational technology which is still very much wedded to VLE based courses. One of our central ideas is that learners will support each other through the social layers of a PLE and in particular will use such a device for collaborative problem solving in the context that the problem occurs. In such a situation the curriculum is essentially being evolved within the community and resources are co-developed by that community. I am not saying that such an approach will replace traditional education – or that everyone will want to develop their own PLE. But I am convinced the opportunity is there – if educators and educational technologists can grasp the idea of contextual learning using mobile devices.

NB If you are interested in trialling the mPLE contact Mark van Harmelen.

Are we still getting e-learning wrong – how can we get it ‘right’?

Posted on August 25, 2009 by Graham Attwell

I have written many posts about what I consider wrong with approaches to e-learning based on attempts to ‘manage’ learning through Learning Management Systems and Virtual Learning Environments. I have also written about the promise of alternative approaches based on Web 2.0, social software and Personal Learning Environments.

But are we still getting e-learning wrong? Not the technology but what we are trying to use ot for and with whom.

As with most technological innovation, first attempts at implementation tend to mimic previous social paradigms. This the idea of the virtual classroom and the on-line university. Teaching and learning through technology have changed with the idea of blended learning and the increasing integration of technologies within curricular and pedagogic approaches. But the main thrust of use of technology for learning remains the delivery of ‘traditional; curricula or bodies of knowledge to translational students groups – albeit extended through distance learning to a wider student cohort.

I have long thought that the transformative potential of Technology Enhanced Learning is the ability to support explorative (I am desperately trying to avoid that vague ‘constructivist’ word?) learning for anyone, anywhere. And, in a developmental perspective, the most interesting work may be the use of technology for supporting work based learning and informal learning outside traditional courses. In this respect, it is interested to see the increasing interest of projects funded under the European Commission Research programme and Education and Training programme in competence based approaches to education and training.

However, this approach remains problematic. attempts to develop standardised taxonomies of competence tend to ignore the importance of context, especially or work based learning and Continuing Professional Development. Recently, I have been involved in a number fo projects looking at how we can use internet based technologies ot support learning, knowledge development and knowledge maturing for Careers Advice, Information and Guidance practitioners in the UK. Of course, ‘training’ is important for such a group of knowledge workers. But even more important is the ability to learn, everyday from the work they carry out, both individually and collectively. Within the Mature-IP project we have developed an approach to knowledge maturing aiming at the development and implementation of tools for Personal Learning and for Organisational learning. In reality it has proved difficult to separate out the two. Individual learning rests of more collective learning processes, within a community of practice, and equally organisational learning is largely dependent on the individual learning of the practitioners. it is possible to look at the roles and tasks carried out by Careers professionals and then to develop tools to assist in carrying out such tasks. such an approach has the merit of supporting everyday work, thus meaning that potentially learning is integrated within the work process. However, there is no guarantee that merely using technologies for task management results in significant learning and knowledge development at either individual or organisational level.

One answer appears to be to integrate more social software functionality into platforms and tools designed to support learning. this autumn, we will launch two platforms: one for policy makers within the careers field based on a mash up of WordPress and the excellent Open University Cloudworks software, and the other a professional development site for careers practitioners based on Buddypress. with both we are attempting to encourage and facilitate peer group learning based on social interaction.

Whether or not these approaches will be successful remains to be seen. But, overall, I am convinced that such projects are key to developing a more transformational direction to the use of technology for learning. In undertaking this work we are lucky to have the support of the Mature-IP project which allows a more focused examination of teh relation between theories and practice in learning and the development of Technology Enhanced Learning tools and platforms. One issue that has become apparent is that research into Technology Enhanced Learning is truly inter-disciplinary – needing at a very least a bringing together of expertise in pedagogy, education, organisational learning, work sciences, design and psychology as well as computer science. Such interdisciplinary research provides a challenge in terms of methodologies.

Projects like Mature-IP and the JISC funded Emerge project offer the basis for rethinking what we are doing with e-learning – and perhaps even for getting it ‘right’ this time round.

Twitter experts on Personal Learning Environments

Posted on July 23, 2009 by Graham Attwell

I am in Leicester in the UK at a “Personal Learning Environment Expert Workshop organised by the EU ROLE project.

In one group activity this morning they asked us to discuss three questions. I twittered the questions and was surprised by the number of replies i received. So I though I would share with you your collective expertise!

But first the questions:

What constitutes as a PLE for you?
What constitutes learning ….within PLEs. Are such constituents of learning measurable and how?
How do you interpret ‘responsiveness” of a PLE?

And your replies (many thanks to all of you – these have been passed on to the ROLE project partners):

CareersTalk

leading-edge ideas for careers work

Category Archives: e-learning 2.0

Going mobile

Twitter experts on Personal Learning Environments