Reference Hub3
Making it Rich and Personal: Crafting an Institutional Personal Learning Environment

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

Su White (University of Southampton, UK) and Hugh C. Davis (University of Southampton, UK)
Copyright: © 2011 |Volume: 2 |Issue: 4 |Article: 3 |Pages: 17
ISSN: 1947-8518|EISSN: 1947-8526|DOI: 10.4018/jvple.2011100103
Cite Article Cite Article

MLA

White, Su and Hugh C. Davis. "Making it Rich and Personal: Crafting an Institutional Personal Learning Environment." IJVPLE 2.4 (2011): 23-39. Web. 1 Jan. 2019. doi:10.4018/jvple.2011100103

APA

White, S., & Davis, H. C. (2011). Making it Rich and Personal: Crafting an Institutional Personal Learning Environment. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments (IJVPLE), 2(4), 23-39. doi:10.4018/jvple.2011100103

Chicago

White, Su and Hugh C. Davis. "Making it Rich and Personal: Crafting an Institutional Personal Learning Environment," International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments (IJVPLE) 2 (2011): 4, accessed (January 01, 2019), doi:10.4018/jvple.2011100103

Export Reference

Mendeley
Favorite Full-Issue PDF

Abstract

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

References

Attwell, G. (2007). Personal learning environments – the future of eLearning? Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.97.3011&rep
Bradwell P. (2009). The edgeless university: Why higher education must embrace technology. London, UK: Demos.
Conole G. de Laat M. Dillon T. Darby J. (2006). JISC LXP: Student experiences of technologies report. Bristol, UK: HEFCE.
Downes, S. (2005). E-learning 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?article=29-1&section=articles
Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Reaching through Technology, New Orleans, LA (pp. 78-94).
Gaver W. W. (1996). Situating action ii: Affordances for interaction: The social is material for design.Ecological Psychology, 8(2), 111–129. 10.1207/s15326969eco0802_2
JISC. (2007). A report on the JISC CETIS PLE project. Retrieved from http://wiki.cetis.ac.uk/Ple/Report
Jonassen D. H. Mayes J. T. McAleese R. (1993). A manifesto for a constructivist approach to uses of technology in higher education. In DuffyT. M.LowyckJ.JonassenD. H. (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 231–247). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Marshall, S., & Mitchell, G. (2006). Assessing sector e-learning capability with an e-learning maturity model. In Proceedings of the 13th ALT-C Conference on the Association for Learning Technologies: The Next Generation (pp. 203-214).
O'Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0 – Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
O'Reilly T. (2007). What Is Web 2.0 – Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software.Communications & Strategies, 1(1), 17–37.
Olivier, B., & Liber, O. (2002). Lifelong learning: The need for portable personal learning environments and supporting interoperability standards. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Infrastructure for Electronic Business, Education, Science and Medicine on the Internet, L'Aquilla, Italy.
Shaffert, S., & Hilzensauer, W. (2008). On the way towards personal learning environments: Seven crucial aspects. Retrieved from http://www.elearningeuropa.info/mt/node/2680
Shirky, C. (2003). A group is its own worst enemy. Clay Shirky's writings about the Internet: Economics & culture, media & community. Retrieved from http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
Tiropanis T. Davis H. Millard D. Weal M. White S. Wills G. (2009). Semantic technologies in learning and teaching (SemTech). Bristol, UK: JISC.
Van Harmelen, M. (2006). Personal learning environments. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Kerkrade, The Netherlands.
Wenger E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
White, S. (1993). Scholar - A campus wide structure for multimedia learning. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational and Training Technology, Glasgow, UK.
White, S. (2006). Higher education and learning technologies: An organisational perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
White, S., & Davis, H. C. (2008). eMM Benchmarking at Southampton: The carpet, observations and reflections (Tech. Rep. No. LSL-EL-0108, ECS). Southampton, UK: University of Southampton.

Request Access

You do not own this content. Please login to recommend this title to your institution's librarian or purchase it from the IGI Global bookstore.