formative accompaniment border in e-learning: integration between lms and ple
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Formative Accompaniment Border in E-Learning: Integration between LMS and PLE
1/7
Copyright IICE-2014 Published by Infonomics Society ISBN: 978-1-908320-25-4
IICE-2014
Edited By
Charles A. Shoniregun
Galyna A. Akmayeva
Ireland International Conference on Education
October 27-30, 2014, Dublin, Ireland
www.iicedu.org
IICE-2014 Proceedings
Contents Page Executive Committees Invited Workshop PhD/Doctorate Consortium
Welcome Speech Keynote Speakers Workshops Sessions
http://www.infonomics-society.org/http://naasln.org/http://www.ioe.ac.uk/http://www.ul.ie/http://www.southampton.ac.uk/http://www.canadianteachermagazine.com/http://www.e-missions.net/http://www.iicedu.org/ -
8/10/2019 Formative Accompaniment Border in E-Learning: Integration between LMS and PLE
2/7
Ireland International Conference on Education (IICE-2014)
October 27-30, 2014, Dublin, Ireland
Bewleys Hotel BallsbridgeMarrion RoadBallsbridge
Dublin 4Ireland
Copyright IICE-2014 Published by Infonomics Society ISBN 978-1-908320-25-4 2
-
8/10/2019 Formative Accompaniment Border in E-Learning: Integration between LMS and PLE
3/7
Flipping Advice for Beginners: What I Have Learned So Far(Author: Craig McBride)
233
Instructional Design of Collaborative Studies for Problem-Based Learning in English(Authors: Yoshinori Naruse, Akiko Nagayama)
240
Effects of High-Stakes Testing on Elementary Classroom Practice(Author: Linda Mabry)
244
Session 11: Curriculum, Research and Development 251
Library Education in Schools: The Case of Eleven Selected Schools in Mtubatuba, South Africa(Author: Veli Jiyane)
252
Comparison of French-Canadian Children with Other Samples of Children Using the Medical Symptom Validity Test(Author: Hlne Flamand)
253
The Use of Intercultural Simulation for Teaching Cultural Competence to Pre-Service Teachers(Author: Sharon Matthews)
254
An Appraisal of the Information Needs of Home-based and Cross-border Distance Students in Botswana(Author: Olugbade Oladokun)
259
Session 12: Language Education 265
Topic Selection and Development in LearnerNative Speaker Voice-Based Telecollaborative Discourse(Author: Anne Barron)
266
Third Year Level South African University Students Competenceof English Indirect Statements and Sequence of Tenses(Author: Matodzi Nancy Lambani)
269
Dual Language Learners in Early Childhood: Literacy through Language(Authors: Mary Ann Cahill, Anne E. Gregory)
270
Language-induced Cultural Conflict: Are Schools in Mining Towns in Zimbabwe Strategic in Averting Cultural Conflict?(Authors: Daniel Madzanire, Corinne Meier)
272
Session 13: ICT Education 281
Reliability and Validity of Social Media Toolkit(Authors: Selcan Kilis, Christian Rapp, Yasemin Glbahar)
282
Constructing Identities in an Online Forum of a South African University(Authors: Louise Postma, A. Seugnet Bl ignaut)
288
Supporting the development of Cloud Computing skills in SMEs through Training and Mentoring(Authors: Ileana Hamburg, Emma O Brien)
295
Formative Accompaniment Border in E-Learning: Integration between LMS and PLE(Authors: Ivanildo Jos de Melo Filho, Alex Sandro Gomes, Rosngela Saraiva Carvalho, Enio Luiz Costa Tavares)
302
Session 14: Global Issues in Education306
Four Portuguese Educational Guides on Gender and Citizenship(Authors: Cristina C. Vieira, Teresa Alvarez, Teresa Pinto)
307
The Boys in the Back Room Meet the Liberals under the Bed: Politics and Childrens Literature(Author: Hilary Pollack)
308
Israeli National Security and Palestinian Education after the Intifadas(Author: Jeffrey S. Burwell, S.J.)
313
Learning by listening to African women's voices in Australia(Author: Susie Costello)
318
Copyright IICE-2014 Published by Infonomics Society ISBN 978-1-908320-25-4 7
-
8/10/2019 Formative Accompaniment Border in E-Learning: Integration between LMS and PLE
4/7
Formative Accompaniment Border in E-Learning: Integration between
LMS and PLE
Ivanildo Jos de Melo FilhoIFPEBelo Jardim CampusBrazil
UFPEInformatics CentreBrazil
Alex Sandro GomesUFPEInformatics CentreBrazil
Rosngela Saraiva CarvalhoUFPEInformatics CentreBrazil
Enio Luiz Costa TavaresIF SertoOuricuri CampusBrazil
Abstract
This paper aims to introduce a conclusion of aninitial study and make way for reflection on existing
limitations and difficulties in the Learning
Management System (LMS) literature opposing the
Personal Learning Environment (PLE). The revision
which was done assures the existing limitations in
the LMS, besides indicating that the researches
related to the formative accompaniment of the
learners activities in e-learning coming from this
possible integration are absent. Moreover, 03 (three)
integrating sceneries were identified and are
introduced. From these results, a scenario isproposed and introduced the concept of social
mechanism for the formative accompaniment
activities in e-learning. After that, two questions are
introduced. They are part of the follow-up step of
this investigation for discussing with this community.
1. Introduction
One of the most representative tools in the field ofe-learning is the LMS [1]. According to [2], the LMSare controlled and managed by teaching institutions.
They can be found in almost all the institutions, andconsequently, students, tutors, and teachers use them.To [3] the LMS is widely established and must stayin the learning field. It means that, whichever it is theteaching modality, this tool is completelyconsolidated in the educational range. Although,despite its extensive acceptance, [4] call our attentionto the fact it has not reached the expectedimprovements. To [1], the fundamental reasons tothis panorama are related to:
The learning process ought to be focused onthe learner not on the institution or even thecourse [5].
In the necessity to offer lifelong learningsupport to learners [6].
It is essential to consider the informal learningand the support to 2.0 tools which foster thislearning pattern [7].
The learning systems must be able to proceedwith the new technologies [8].
The LMS became prominent 20 years ago, inview of the World Wide Web general use [9].According to the authors, The technologies whichare used by LMS have a standard specification,
whether they are commercial, for instance theWebCT, REDU and Blackborad or Open Source asthe Moodle, A Tutor and LMS AMADEUS amongother ones. Whichever the perspective, they allintroduce basically similar functionalities and a set ofpedagogical approaches which may be developed.
These environments intrinsically have thecharacteristic of providing a set of benefits tostudents and employees at an institution. To thosewho manage an LMS environment it is allowed toprovide a set of tools that enable the addition of newcontents, a cut-off of an existing content in order tocreate new courses. The student is managed
efficiently, besides offering a unique integrationpoint with the students records systems.However, the LMS are considered a conservative
technology, it happens due to the fact they areidealised to be a solution to a set of institutionalproblems. Whether it is in the learners management,or it is in providing the tools, or even it is indelivering the contents. From this point of view, theLMS work efficiently to the necessities of theinstitutions. On the other hand, according to [9], theyare frequently badly adapted to the learners
necessities.In the attempt to solve these problems the PLE
arise. These learning environments are idealised to
Copyright IICE-2014 Published by Infonomics Society ISBN 978-1-908320-25-4 302
-
8/10/2019 Formative Accompaniment Border in E-Learning: Integration between LMS and PLE
5/7
be able to fulfil the brand new necessities, although,it is necessary to consider how to integrate formaltendencies, and informal ones in the learningprocess. It is assured by [1] that the PLE represent anopportunity to management, searching for higherefficiency in the learning process.
A lot of PLE solutions in a wide array of fieldsare conceived to the learning support, although, agreat number of them are focused on providingautonomy to learners, without keeping any relationto the systematic monitoring of their activities out ofthe LMS environment.
In the pursuit of his research [10], introduce thepotentials associated to the PLEs and He exposesthat this kind of technology is in itself a type ofincreasing phenomenon, and it has attracted theinterest in the e-learning field due to itsmultidimensional characteristic. Up to 2006, thedefinition to the PLE term remained unclear, that is
what assures [11]. The author shows that the conceptabout what must compose a PLE depends on theviewpoint and its use.
It suggests that the priorities to an PLE proposethemselves to be different to an undergraduatestudent, a technical education student, to a universitycoordinator, to a professor, to an specific assignment,or even to any individual who looks for analternative way of learning during ones lifetime.
This paper aims to introduce a conclusion of aninitial study and make way for reflection on existinglimitations and difficulties in the LearningManagement System (LMS) literature opposing the
Personal Learning Environment (PLE). Besides theintroduction to the limitations, it is also discussedand introduced the integration possibilities and howimportant they are in the learners formativeaccompaniment in e-learning.
This work is organised as it follows: section 2 isabout the LMS limitations facing the PLEpossibilities. Section 3 introduces the perspectives ofthe ongoing research. And, eventually, section 4comes up with some final considerations on thisresearch.
2. LMS: Limitations and Integrating
Perspective
The limitation characteristics of the LMS havebeen discussed since 2001, when [12] evinced thatarchitectures based on LMS do not meet thestudents learning needs completely during theirlives, hampering them to manage their own learning.Moreover, these architectures do not seem adequateto provide the learners with continuity, even if it istemporary, once they themselves are unplugged fromthese environments. The authors [13] reinforces thatthe LMS are mainly tools to deliver and organise thecontent built up by the teacher to the course,placing the students at a very passive role, simply as
followers of the modules of a course at a pre-determined rhythm.
In step with [5] the authors complement that thePLE are on the way to bring two institutional wallsdown, making solutions essential to integrate theinstitutional and non-institutional worlds, which
means the formal, not formal, and in the informallearning process. However, some determined tasksneed to be done because of some difficultiesshownin Table 1keep on existing in the relation.
Table 1. Difficulties associated with theprocess of integration between LMS and
PLE Adapted [1]
Difficulties Description
InteroperabilityThe LMS have difficulties toadd interoperability patterns [3].
Integration of
activities
The formation of integration ofactivities between LMS and
PLE are not adequate, once thePLE are conceived torepresentation, sorting, andaccompaniment in otherplatforms [14].
Traceability
Difficulties in the traceability ofthe user activities in the PLE.Therefore, it generatesproblems in the activities whichare considered formal [15].
Single-sign-on
execution
The difficulty to establish aunique entry point among thesystems involved [16].
SecurityDifficulties to ensure thesecurity of information due tolack of interoperability [17].
In light of the diversity of resources, solutions andexisting device make the coexistence possiblebetween the PLE and LMS in order to promote itsintegration has been a continuous challenge in thescientific community. To [2], bringing flexibility andextensibility to the LMS is crucial, this is because itprovides a free choice of Technologies andpedagogical material to teachers and learners in theircourses.
Even according to [1] there are lots of initiatives,although, none of them provide efficient methods toassure a complete integration and interaction inbetween LMS and PLE. To that extend [14]proposed 3 (three) sceneries to the coexistence:
Scenery 1:Parallel existence of the LMS andthe PLE. The PLE is a kind of dominantconception in informal learning environmentsor even in learning based on competences.Meanwhile, the LMS would remain as a keytechnology of the formal teaching systems.
Scenery 2: The LMS would make availableits structures, establishing an interoperability
with the PLE.
Copyright IICE-2014 Published by Infonomics Society ISBN 978-1-908320-25-4 303
-
8/10/2019 Formative Accompaniment Border in E-Learning: Integration between LMS and PLE
6/7
Scenery 3:Adding the PLE characteristics toLMS ones, this way, allowing in this way toincorporate the existing transforming power inthe PLE.
Based on proposals which belongs to [14], [1]shows that Scenery 1 does not considerate the
integration, simply the simultaneous companionship.Scenery 2 refers to the releasing of the LMSthroughout Web services and interoperabilityinitiatives, such as: initiatives based on iGoogle,social networks connected to the LMS, possibility tothe LMS to offer support to the implementation ofinteroperability specifications, for instance the IMS,the PLE could be conceived with a specific protocolof communication [10]. Or even to have theintegration based on Service Oriented Architecture(SOA). Finally, Scenery 3, in which [1] calls theattention to the fact that he considers the externaltool integrations in the LMS. This way, the learners
could not be able to decide which tools would beused, this way being restricted to institutionaldecisions.
3. Research Perspectives
The authors [18] emphasize that different LMSoffer different affordances and pedagogical designfor learning interactions, which results in differencelearning interaction patterns. They also add that withthe emergence of a new era in LMS a new set ofaffordances is needed to support the appropriate
learning interactions.It is known that formal teaching institutionspractise in their courses a traditional way ofevaluation, where at the end of each module or at theend of the course grades are given. Within theresearched literature, it was not identified any aspectdirectly related to the formative accompaniment ofthe learners with activities when they are out of theirformal learning environments. In this research, it isunderstood that formative accompaniment is thepossibility in which the teacher or the tutor is able toarrange to his pupils activities that could be done outof the LMS.
This context allows us to understand theimportance of the link the LMS must have with thePLE. Provide conditions that enable the teacher oreven the tutor to keep up with the learners along theirpath, mainly in activities out of the LMSenvironment which are related to activities in theirformal courses.
Due to the vast number of possibilities which maybe created using the PLE, its process of analysis,accompaniment, and evaluation, from both theoperational point of view in which the tools will beselected and used, and also in the accompaniment ofthe learners on which activities in their PLEs have
been done and that have a link with the currentactivities in the virtual learning environments.
The next step of this research seeks to exclusivelyinvestigate the phenomena arising from the inclusionof a social mechanism represented by Figure 1 between the educational contexts in order to enable
teachers and/or tutors have grants or indicators foraccompaniment individual or group. The proposedmechanism is according to the recommendations[19]. Furthermore, allow to realize who is strugglingin the learning process, and finally, which facilitatesin-depth analysis of the formative accompaniment,allowing actions to be taken as profile and learningcontext of the learners.
Figure 1. Social mechanism for formativeaccompaniment between LMS and PLE
The 4 elements are represented in Figure 1 andconsists in the next step in this research setting. In
the figure, the indication "1" is related the LMS informal courses or courses in the distance or blendedlearning. The indication 2 represent theintroduction of a social mechanism that would enablethe formative accompaniment in formal courses indistance education enabled by the integration ofthese educational contexts. This step consists in theconception and design of social mechanism and ithas 3 phases namely: Phase 01 Definingintegration technologies and architecture; Phase 02Designing and validating prototypes; Phase 03 Generate functional prototype. The indication "3"shows the user in this research considers that it
interacts with both the LMS, as for other tools on theweb or mobile devices represented by indication"4"in the pursuit of their learning.
In this context, two questions are released andconsist in the following step of this study: to whatextend the integration of educational contextsbetween LMS and PLE would allow teachers/tutorsthe adequate formative accompaniment out of theLMS in professional education courses? Then,similarly, being an element that contributes with thelink to promote organisation to their learningactivities?
Copyright IICE-2014 Published by Infonomics Society ISBN 978-1-908320-25-4 304
-
8/10/2019 Formative Accompaniment Border in E-Learning: Integration between LMS and PLE
7/7
4. Conclusions
Once it is about an ongoing work, the proposedsocial mechanism finds itself in a continuous processof development. It is believed that at the end of theperformance of the steps which were defined to its
conception, units or functional stages are conceived,this way, generating the conceptual pattern of thesocial mechanism to the formative accompaniment ine-learning.
5. References
[1] Conde, Miguel ngel; Garca-Pealvo, FranciscoJos; Casany, Mara Jos; Forment, Marc Alier.Personal Learning Environments and the Integrationwith Learning Management Systems. InformationSystems, E-learning, and Knowledge ManagementResearch Communications in Computer andInformation Science Volume 278, 2013, pp 16-21.
[2] Bogdanov, Evgeny; Ullrich, Carsten; Isaksson, Erik;Palmr, Matthias; Gillet, Denis. From LMS to PLE: a
Step Forward through OpenSocial Apps in Moodle.Presented at: The 11th International Conference onWeb-based Learning ICWL, 2012. Available in: . Last visit: April 16, 2014.
[3] Sclater, Niall. Web 2.0, Personal LearningEnvironments, and the Future of LearningManagement Systems (Research Bulletin, Issue 13).Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis andResearch, 2008. Available in:. Last visit: April 16, 2014.
[4] Brown, J.S. & Adler, R.P. (2008). Minds on Fire:Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0.In
Educause Review, January/February 2008, 43 (1),1632. Boulder: Educause. Retrieved January 20,2008.
[5] Attwell (a), G.: The Personal Learning Environments- the future of eLearning? eLearning Papers 2 (2007).Availablein:. Lastvisit: April 16, 2014.
[6] Attwell (b), G.: e-Portfolios the DNA of thePersonal Learning Environment? Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society 3 (2007). Availablein: < http://www.pontydysgu.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/eportolioDNAofPLEjournal.pdf >. Last visit: April 16, 2014.
[7] Ajjan, H., Hartshorne, R.: Investigating facultydecisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory andEmpirical Tests. The Internet and Higher Education11, 7180 (2008)
[8] Mott, J., Wiley, D.: Open for Learning: The CMS andthe Open Learning Network. In: Education -Exploring Our Connective Educational Landscape.University of Regina, Saskatchewan (2009).
[9] Colin D. Milligan, Phillip Beauvoir, Mark W.Johnson, Paul Sharples, Scott Wilson, Oleg Liber.Developing a Reference Model to Describe thePersonal Learning Environment. InnovativeApproaches for Learning and Knowledge SharingLecture Notes in Computer Science Volume
4227, 2006, pp 506-511. Available in: . Last visit: April 16, 2014.
[10] Van Harmelen, M. (2006). Personal LearningEnvironments. In: Computer Society (Eds.) SixthIEEE International Conference on AdvancedLearning Technologies (ICALT06), (pp.815-816)London, England, 02 April, 06 June, 2006. London:UK.
[11] Lubensky, R. The present and future of PersonalLearning Environments (PLE). Deliberations:Reflecting on learning and deliberating aboutdemocracy. 2006. Available in: Last visit:April 16, 2014.
[12] Olivier, B. and O. Liber. Lifelonglearning: the needfor portable personal learning environments andsupporting interoperability standards. SSGRR2002w International Conference on Advances inInfrastructure for Electronic Business, Education,Science and Medicine on the Internet, L'Aquilla, Italy.2001.
[13]
Downes, S. (2005). e-Learning 2.0. RetrievedSeptember 14, 2008, from elearn. Magazine.Available in: