COPSRL
Communities-Of-Practice vs. Self-Regulated Learning
Beyond Collaborative Filtering: Generating Local Top-N Recommendations for Personal Learning Environments
Aug 18th
Personal learning environments (PLEs) deal with supporting learners in their everyday activities, e.g. by empowering them to design and use their environments so that they can connect to learner networks and collaborate on shared artifacts to achieve their goals (Wild et al., 2008). One important instrument of PLEs is recommender technology which is applied according to very different paradigms and techniques. Amongst others, recommendations can guide through the learning process on the basis of psycho-pedagogical principles (Fruhmann et al., 2010), help to identify relevant artifacts, experts or learning events at the workplace (Ghidini et al., 2007), or provide community and context-aware information to learners (El Helou et al., 2009; Pham et al., 2011). More >
Outcome-oriented fitness measurement of personal learning environments
Mar 31st
The Workshop on ‘Exploring the Fitness and Evolvability of Personal Learning Environments’ (EFEPLE) which was held at the 2nd STELLAR Alpine Rendez-Vous (ARV) in March 2011 addressed a rather novel idea in the field of PLE research. Above and beyond, the workshop was about the applicability of evolutionary biology concepts for PLEs. Amongst all the interesting workshop contributions, I reported about an attempt to formalize and measure the uptake (fitness) of PLE technology in real-world settings (Mödritscher, 2011). Basically, the article examines the usage of PLEs and their effect on lifelong learning, whereby a PLE is considered as “a set of learning tools, services, and artifacts gathered from various contexts to be used by the learners” (Henri et al., 2008). In order to formalize and examine the evolvability of PLEs, I stressed the notion of fitness, a concept given by evolutionary theory. More >
On reconstructing and utilizing PLEs of scientific artefacts
Mar 30th
A personal learning environment (PLE) refers to “a set of learning tools, services, and artifacts gathered from various contexts to be used by the learners” (Henri et al, 2008). Furthermore Van Harmelen (2008) states that PLEs aim at empowering learners to design (ICT-based) environments for their activities so that they can connect to learner networks and collaborate on shared outcomes and acquire necessary (professional and rich professional) competences. It is obvious that scientific publications are typical outcomes of PLE-based activities, involving several human agents with different roles (main author, co-authors, organizer/editor, reviewers, etc) and using different tools (MS Word, email, conference/journal submission system, etc). In our research (see also Mödritscher et al., 2011) we have examined to which extent PLEs which led to scientific artefacts can be reconstructed and used for further application in the field of technology-enhanced learning. More >
Approach of Integrating Communities of Practice (CoP) in the Self-Regulated Learning Process Model
Feb 1st
This is an approach to cover the rather practical-driven approach of Community of Practice (CoP; WP7) with the umbrella of the theory-driven self-regulation model (SRL; WP6). The identified gap of these two WPs could be closed by linking CoP to the cyclic SRL-model and point out the importance of understanding SRL on a meta- and a specific level. Therefore it should be analyzed when and how the CoP approach can be integrated in the SRL model (meta level) and how SRL processes are already included in CoP, especially in the learning activities (specific level). In order to do so, a closer look at the psycho-pedagogical integration model reveals a connecting factor at the second phase, where learners are able, respectively requested to select their learning resource. Furthermore an attempt is undertaken to adapt the SRL processes of the psycho-pedagogical integration model for CoP. More >
Communities of Practice – brief review and positioning
Dec 30th
As stated in this blog, a gap between WP6 and WP7 has been identified. This gap can be formulated in terms of the differences between a theory-driven approach of self-regulated learning (WP6) and a pragmatic, community-driven PLE approach (WP7), also denoted as community of practice. This article aims at clarifying the term community of practice, its key features and how this concept is link between WP6 and WP7. Communities of practice are used in many different scenarios. Especially in lifelong learning and knowledge management they are seen as a promising way to transfer knowledge from one to the mass and make knowledge a common good, available for every participant. The transformation of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge makes this concept a very powerful tool for companies. Whether a community of practice works well or not, depends on the motivation of the participants to actively provide knowledge, actively demand it or passively consume it (Ardichvili et al., 2003). Another success factor of communities of practice is trust (Daniel et al. 2003), dissipation of organisational or technological barriers and benefits (Ardichvili et al., 2003). More >
Communities-Of-Practice vs. Self-Regulated Learning: Motivation, backgrounds, and modus operandi of this blog
Nov 23rd
In the scope of the EU project ROLE we identified a gap between the two work packages which drive research and development of the project, namely WP6 (Psycho-Pedagogical Integration Model, Evaluation, and Validation) and WP7 (Learning Community Building and Sustaining).
Psycho-pedagogical integration model (WP6)
On the one hand WP6 proposes a theory-driven approach based on solid literature survey and the concept of self-regulated learning, implicating that the empowerment of learners to design and use their personal learning environment is driven by intra-personal competencies within a process with four stages: (1) define and revise profile, (2) find and select resources, (3) work on selected resources, and (4) reflect and react on strategies, achievements, and usefulness (see ROLE Deliverable D6.1: Common psycho-pedagogical framework).
Simple model of a learning ecology (WP7)
On the other hand WP7 follows a rather pragmatic, community-driven PLE approach. Hereby, learners are understood as actors who interact with processes (i.e. activities), media (i.e. tools), communities, artefacts, and agents (i.e. peers). Learning takes place in so-called activities in which a group of learners collaborate on shared artefacts by utilising tools and in order to achieve a specific goal.
Example of a PLE-based, collaborative activity (WP7)
Based on this simple model of an activity, the empowerment of learners to design and use their PLEs can be supported through different functionality, like good practice sharing or recommendations (see ROLE Deliverable D7.1/ID7.2: Model and Methodology for PLE-Based Collaboration in Learning Ecologies).
The goal of this blog is to publish and promote results of the two work packages, and discuss them appropriately. Overall, this public treatment of WP6 and WP7 issues aims at bridging the gap between the opposing viewpoints of these two work packages. To achieve this goal, WP-related visions, developments, and results will be published alternately. In each turn one of the WP leaders tries to identify and involve a contributor who publishes theories and findings related to the corresponding work package. A turn is supposed to last about two weeks.
Felix Mödritscher, Vienna University of Economics & Business (WU), Austria,
Alexander Nussbaumer, Graz University of Technology (TUG), Austria
