EVALUATING THE AFFORDANCES OF AN iPLE NETWORK IN AN UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL ONLINE COURSE

PLE conference 2011University of Southampton, July 11-13

Oskar Casquero (oskar.casquero@ehu.es) University of the Basque Country

Context

Web 2.0 technologies and patterns are thought to be beneficial in challenging traditional learning approaches and in addressing limitations of current VLE implementations there is a growing body of research that expresses positive

perceptions about their impact in formal educational settings the tendency to adopt them continues to increase at higher

education Service-oriented VLEs, SAPO Campus, SocialLearn, Google Apps for Education, …

But we need to critically examine whether the benefits of Web 2.0 technologies and patterns can effectively be transferred to formal educational settings (Lim et al., 2010) When Web 2.0 technologies and patterns tools are “added” instead

of being “integrated”, they yield minimal benefits (Moore, 2007) Learner acceptance of Web 2.0 technologies and patterns generally

used for non-educational/recreational purposes might not necessarily imply acceptance for learning purposes (Cole, 2008)

Context

PLEs are supposed to enable this transference by providing new affordances to support new learning practices. Increasing reports of the benefits of PLEs are being

observed (PLE conference) But it’s a relative new concept (ILE special issue,

2008) and there are different ways of implementing it (MUPPLE series)

We need more empirical research in order to validate the usefulness of PLEs in different institutional/formal settings

To what extent does using a PLE dynamize or improve the learning process compared to

traditional VLE/LMS eLearning implementations ?

Case study

2 courses in 2009/2010: Web20HR and Web20RS Distributed learners (9 universities) Heterogeneous learners (140 students belonging to

different degrees) Partially free of inertia of pre-existing networks (most

students do not know each other) Learning process entirely afforded by online interactions

with a diverse set of services that require openness of one’s activities

Instruction based on “learning by collaboratively doing” Students in each subject were divided into 2 groups

CTRL group using Moodle EXP group using an institutionally-powered PLE

CTRL group using Moodle

Typical Moodle implementation offered by our university 2 types of communications channels were available to the

students: email and forums Around this implementation: CMS tools Blogger and

Wikispaces, and digital resource repositories Delicious, Flickr, YouTube, Scribd and SlideShare

EXP group using the iPLE

We preconfigured an iGoogle start page with a set of widgets adapted to the profile of the course.

The access to the ecosystem of services was done through a unique digital identity using Google account’s OpenID

FriendFeed life-streaming service was selected to collect, centralize and share students’ digital activity in CMS tools and digital resource repositories

4 types of communications channels were made available to the students: GMail email, GTalk chat, Google Groups forums and FriendFeed conversations around resources from each student’s learn-streaming.

Around this implementation: CMS tools Blogger and Wikispaces, and digital resource repositories Delicious, Flickr, YouTube, Scribd and SlideShare

iPLE given to each student iPLE network every student is connected to all other students any student could see the learning outcomes of the others

EXP group using the iPLE

iPLE: FriendFeed

learn-streaming service

iPLE: Google Groups

solving problems collaboratively

iPLE affordances

It is given out of the box by the institution It is pre-configured with the default contacts, communities, resources and

services the student will require during his learning process within the institution

It is flexible enough to interact with the wide range of contacts, communities, resources and services outside the institution that the student will require

It gives access to the entire ecosystem of services through a unique digital identity.

It centralizes in one point all conversations and digital activity inside and outside the institution, and therefore it allows merging personal and institutional spheres.

It allows externalizing the learning process, giving opportunity to read others work, and offering rich opportunities for reflection and feedback

It is composed of loosely coupled external services that allow the student to retain the ownership of data and relations that can be exported

Method (focus on social)

When evaluating the environments Gathering data about social networks is an expensive task

(self-reported data through interviews) and it introduces methodological issues on recall bias

We work with digital data information can be gathered for analysis with very little extra

work on the part of the respondent and with more accuracy (we can collect all ties and

timestamps) “Learning analytics” approach

The extraction of large volumes of data from services and the application of various analytical techniques in order to identify patterns and correlations (Campbell, De Blois & Oblinger 2007).

Data extraction

Extraction Moodle: queries to database (also possible to

use SNAPP) FriendFeed, Blogger, Flickr: using their APIs Google Groups: using a screen-scraping script

Difficulties There is no social network oriented support in

APIs Time spent filtering interaction and processing

it into networks, rather than slicing the networks themselves

Results: CTRL group (Moodle)

circular graph for the social network in the CTRL group

Results: EXP group (iPLE)

circular graph for the social network in the EXP group

Results: CTRL group (Moodle)

a closer look to the social network in the CTRL group

Results: EXP group (iPLE)

a closer look to the social network in the EXP group

Results: CTRL group (Moodle)

a closer look to the social network in the CTRL group

Results: EXP group (iPLE)

a closer look to the social network in the EXP group

Why is social interaction greater and more homogeneous in the iPLE? The iPLE is the easiest way for the student to contact

his/her Personal Learning Network (PLN). It gives students more facilities to interact with each other, to receive and provide instant feedback and to engage in asynchronous discussions

The iPLE gives students and teachers means to be aware of changes their PLNs and in the iPLE Network (what resources are contributed, what conversations have arisen, etc)

The iPLE is the source where the student can discover new contacts, communities, resources and services because the iPLE can “recommend” what his/her PLN and the iPLE Network are consuming

Deeper data analysis… to be done Collect PLN sub-graphs

longitudinal analysis (by activities) individual communication degree and

connections paths across all alters for a given ego, compute

simple frequencies for following the drivers: discussion starters and feedback givers interaction types and frequencies

About the method…

There are learning aspects that cannot be analyzed with learning analytics approach

For 2010/2011 we are using TRIANGULATION: collecting data from different “signals” Digital data

Ties, timestamps and topics Questionnaire

Learning objectives Pre-existing networks Willingness to communicate Sense of community

EVALUATING THE AFFORDANCES OF AN iPLE NETWORK IN AN UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL ONLINE COURSE

PLE conference 2011University of Southampton, July 11-13

Oskar Casquero (oskar.casquero@ehu.es) University of the Basque Country

Thank you for your attention !