The eXtended Web and the Personal Learning Environment

The eXtended Web and the Personal Learning Environment
Steve Wheeler’s presentation on Web3.0 has stirred Stephen Downes and George Siemens into discussing not Web3.0, but Web X (or Web eXtended) as Stephen calls it, on their blogs. Semantics in names and name tags aside, Web 1.0 mainly seemed to consist of semantics, Web 2.0 of connections, communications, multi-media, virtual worlds and the introduction of mobile devices through the emergence of wireless and higher Internet connection speeds; while Web 3.0 connects data streams in a supposedly intelligent way.
The combination of all four would lead to Web X.0 (Steve) or Web X (Stephen). I myself actually prefer the full name ‘the eXtended web’ as it tells us a little more about its possibilities for learning, and George rightly asks for the lift of the debate from semantic games towards what this Xweb (;-)) means for education and learning.

I am mostly interested in these developments in their relation to Personal Learning Environments as several people over the past months have asked me why I think there is a need to develop a Personal Learning Environment at all. Applications and aggregators of information are freely available and people can take their pick of their preferred ones and create their own network. Why would anybody need some researchers and developers to work on a PLE for them? After all, we all know how easy it is for conglomerates to take over the development of tools and applications and transform them into a moneymaking machine, rather than the powerful and promising tools that they could be for the learner.

Well, there are three issues that I find important in this respect.

1. Intelligent data connections are one exciting option for PLE development and networked learning, as these connecting data streams could through intelligent use of personal data, and of data and searches generated through earlier learning activities, inform the new searches and learning activities.  Recommender systems of information, resources, critical friends and experts could form part of the access options for learners in a PLE that they would not likely be finding in a self-directed fashion.

2. That brings me to the challenges of an open online networked environment for learning. It is all good and well as academics and learning technologists with a high level of epistemological maturity and critical thinking skills to feel confident that all adults, if they want to, can find the relevant information they need, and communicate with others online and learn in the process. The reality, however, is different and research is available to show that not all adult learners are able to critically assess what they find online and might prefer to receive guidance from knowledgeable others. There is also research available to show how difficult it is for anybody to reach and access a deep level of information by using search engines. Self-directed networked learning stops with a commercial search engine or highly visible node on the network, whose interests might not be served by providing the learner with information far removed from its top search results or choice of displayed resources.

Interestingly, educators have highlighted that there is a real need for critical literacies while learning informally on networks. A high number of courses and publications discussing critical literacies are emerging, and show that educators in the field also see that a major stumbling block to personalized learning on informal networks is that people might not necessarily have the critical literacies required to learn and search independently.
Learning in my view is not synonymous with accessing information, and requires a level of reflection, analysis, perhaps also of problem solving, creativity and interaction with people to be able to get the best out of the structures and sub-structures of the Internet. A PLE with the right components can help with this.

3. Access to technology. Issues of access to technology have been moved aside in recent years as the majority of people in the northern hemisphere should now have access to technology. I have followed the trends in access and digital divides over the past six years; in haves and have-nots being able to access technology, and it is true that more than half the population of countries such as the UK now have access to technology, broadband and the Internet. It still means that millions don’t have access and don’t use the Internet. There are reasons for their non-participation. Some are related to age and socio-economic group, but some are also related to relevance, confidence and skills set. Clearly the most vulnerable people in society and the people who could benefit from access through cheaper bills and access to social services are also the people not using it.

The people least likely to use the Internet are also the least likely to participate in adult education. And I haven’t even spoken about the people on the southern half of the globe, where the access and participation rate to technology and learning is even lower and the group of vulnerable people greater. Should we just leave these people behind?

Or could PLEs that would provide help with Internet use and might be used on mobile devices be the answer to making the Internet relevant to the lives of all? Although technology is not high on the priority list of excluded people, slowly but steadily they become involved as it is clear that there is a correlation between the rate of convergence and the access threshold for people. The higher the rate of convergence of digital devices, the lower the access threshold to technology use has become. I think that PLEs that hold the right components will aid learners who are not so confident in using the internet for learning activities.

What components would be needed?

The components that were formulated in Stephen Downes’ vision for a PLE at the start of the PLE project of the National Research Council of Canada are the following: 1. A personal profiler that would collect and store personal information. 2. An information and resource aggregator to collect information and resources. 3. Editors and publishers enabling people to produce and publish artifacts to aid the learning and interest of others. 4. Helper applications that would provide the pedagogical backbone of the PLE and make connections with other internet services to help the learner make sense of information, applications and resources. 5. Services of the learners choice. 6. Recommenders of information and resources.

I think Stephen was right. The further we are in the process of developing these components, the clearer I can see how together they could really work in a PLE based on the eXtended Web. The could help overcome challenges related to learning on informal online networks, such as to advance people’s confidence levels in using technology and increase the relevance of their searches and communication.

Which side of the wall are you on?

It is nearly that time of year again, of the ALT-C conference. The biggest annual event on learning technology in the UK. I will be co-presenter with Clare Woodward of a short paper that will highlight some of our research in access, inclusion and Web 2.0 technologies. Is the new web 2.0 technology the panacea many claim it to be? And how influential is it to those who reside on the wrong side of the technological wall? About 43% of the UK population does not use technology and 25 percent of these people do not see any relevance of technology to their lives. There are those like Selwyn who doubt if Web 2.0 technology will enhance learning at all. The digital natives – digital immigrants typology by Prensky adds another dimension to the debate around the digital divide, and even the Net-generation seem to use it for fairly trivial activities related to chatting with their friends rather than the collaborative and constructivist learning experience envisaged by enthusiasts.

The potential of the latest web 2.0 and mobile technologies and the possibilities for personalisation, network and community forming they offer, place the learner at the centre of the learning experience, rather than the tutor and the institution, and could be instrumental in determining the content of the learning experience. By influencing education for all, they also revive the ideals of ‘adult education for liberation’ as argued by Illich and Freire. Their vision was to see people take ownership of the learning process, rather than institutions controlling their education.

We will discuss developments by drawing upon Illich’s considerations that education must be fit for purpose in relation to the personal, social and educational needs of participants. Moreover, it will explore the issues of ‘ownership of one’s own learning process’ and the extent to which the new social software tools enhance the learning experience.

YouTube ethnography project

I have followed with interest the videos that have appeared in YouTube in relation to Web2.0. The original one made by the Digital Ethnography group from Kansas State University gave a view on Web 2.0 in which learning technologists and other enthusiasts can recognise their current work.

Cory the Raven posted a counter video on YouTube that questions what this kind of medium has to offer in addition to traditional media such as text and film.

The video itself has a very interesting pace to it and I would say the number of comments, communications and discussions on YouTube at the moment, ranging from McLuhan to Welsh, show that the level of communication that has been made possible through the Internet has changed these two older media into something new. It has made that text and film have been transformed from one-to many media in broadcasting mode, into many-to-many media, where information and discussion encourage the creation of knowledge. This in my view makes a big difference. The information is discussed and reactions to the older media mean that new thoughts and ideas are created. The videos have already been viewed by more than a million people and hundreds of comments have been made.

I agree with Cory that it is becoming problematic that half the population is not taking part in the online discussions. It makes that the knowledge in networks is less reliable, as it might only paint a one-sided picture on a subject. As somebody who has worked hard over the past five years to engage people with technology it seems a waste that a vast number of people are excluded from valuable learning opportunities. It seems to me that the higher the rate of convergence of technologies, the faster the engagement of disengaged people will be: the easier and cheaper it will be to access technology on digital televison or mobile phone, the quicker people will be tempted to take part.

Cory seems overly concerned with the move from living in the real world to living in a virtual world. It reminds me of Lyotard's final book in which he was very concerned about the move humans are making towards the 'inhuman'. I would argue that most people who venture online are firmly grounded in the real world and that problems in the real world quite often make that people move online to find information and to discuss whatever makes them tick in reality.

MIT laptops project is gathering momentum

The project by MIT to develop laptops and facilitate equality in ICT access between children in developing and developed countries is gathering momentum. The test phase will start in February.
This seems a massive step in the direction of unleashing the creative potential of people in communities and countries whose voices have been marginalised for so long.

Will the laptops end up and stay with the people they are being designed for? The production cost might be low in Western terms, but in developing countries one laptop would feed a lot of empty stomachs! Link