Personal+Learning+network

=Personal Learning Networks and Social Network Platforms=

In the debate between informal and formal learning, a centre point lens from which the view this argument is the notion of a personal learning network and the unified perspective it places on the learning dynamic, particularly focused on the benefits of informal learning.

When looking at PLN or SNP to facilitate learning, participate, presence and ownership are the keywords used to describe such endeavours (Salavuo, 2008). Motivation to learn is often internally driven as the activities are usually defined by the members of the network. The value of networked learning is that knowledge is distributed in nature and cognitive diversity is an elemental force that supports an informal epistemology. The connected nature of the community (Seimens, 2006) allow for a more collaborative, dynamic and flexible mode of learning that is not often seen in traditional formal classroom settings, particularly when and as they function in an 'on-demand' basis. The 'bottom-up' approach to learning and knowledge sharing fosters visibility within the network as the activities, expertise and artefacts created for the network are available for all to see and use.

Personal learning networks place students at the center of their learning experience (McLoughlin & Lee, 2010). Web 2.0 has shaped the behavior of learners to be more active in their learning. Learners want to be more than receivers of information - they seek to contribute, collaborate and more importantly manipulate the technology to best suit their learning needs (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008). The participatory and social nature of the learning environment reflects a non-deterministic character and encourages informal learning to prosper. As PLN’s generally evolve in non-linear and non-predictable ways (Chatti et al, 2010), the self-organizing nature enables learners to affect the direction of their learning by making connections that sustain the integrity of the learning environment. Downes (2005) describes a learning environment as an approach that protects and celebrates identity, supports multiple levels of socialising, and encourages the development of communities of inquiry. Active participation using Web 2.0 tools affords greater agency for the members to achieve automony and engagement within the context of an informal learning environment. The goal of the PLN is to govern and determine the direction of self directed and informal learning. A self directed learner takes responsibility for the creation, management, evaluation and delivery of artifacts and the use of social software makes a qualitative difference to their sense of ownership and control over their career planning and learning outcomes (McLoughlin & Lee, 2010). Learners act as curators of knowledge and the artifacts they share benefit others within their PLN.

According to a report by the Australian Flexible Learning Framework, "...the focus should now shift toward enabling more informal and emergent social practices and projects. Emerging social software and its use as tools of personal agency and community building offer greater promise for the distributed development of knowledge sharing practices (Stuckey and Arkell, 2006).

Properties of a PLN that make them more appealing and pedagogically viable for learning in an informal space include:
 * 1) Learner centredness -
 * more control of learners of their learning direction and contribution to the community
 * ownership is maintained by learner
 * greater possibilities for on-demand learning to take place
 * 1) Increase possibilities and support for collaborative activities
 * develop personal profiles - bridging boundaries and increase opportunities for creating a stronger network between members
 * support for multimedia formats
 * ad hoc discussions and resource building exercises are encouraged and supported
 * use of 3rd party platforms for asset creation and sharing
 * workload sharing and

media type="youtube" key="aZEEf3uSo14" height="345" width="420"media type="youtube" key="PxV_F63ksMg" height="345" width="420"

media type="youtube" key="TKqJSjvJ4X0" height="345" width="420"media type="youtube" key="q6WVEFE-oZA" height="345" width="420"

Argument against
The argument above outlines the benefits of a Personal Learning Network but we also need to understand personal learning in a professional context in this debate. For learning to be of value in an educational environment, where a focused imperative drives the need for a learning network to exist, particularly if the imperative is to drive change through implementing a new pedagogy for 21st century education.

Social engagement, by its very nature supports informal learning (see the argument for Informal learning); we naturally collect, collaborate and share information, often in tacit human interaction. Wenger, who originally coined the term communities of practice to acknowledge learning networks, states “groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (2002, p. 4) where the “identity of the group is defined by a shared domain of interest” (ibid, p.27) and “inspires members to contribute and participate, guides their learning and give meaning to their action” (ibid, p.28). In this context informal learning is being reflected on and acknowledged at a non-formal level, as contribution means capturing and recording the learning. The domain or focus of interest drives engagement in the network.

In a community or workplace context the challenge to engage participants in a network is more difficult and often requires leadership. Members can become disconnect if the domain is not of interest or fulfils a strategic or immediate need. If cliques develop that dominate the network or use “in” terminology others quickly feel excluded from participating. Strident members can quell creativity and constrain individual growth within the network, while acknowledging individual rights can causes indecision where the network loses focus and direction (Wenger, p. 144-7).

Creating the sense of community in a network is a challenge that requires a deep level of trust. Trust comes from engagement and interactions that are valued and mutually beneficial (ibid, p. 145). Celebrating diversity, acknowledging different levels of engagement and welcoming new members, helps to build trust in a network. Senge cites the crucial role cliques have in the formation of identity in the “Great Game of School” (p.337-9). The hidden agenda of social class determinants where the rules of engagement are unspoken can become magnified online without body language to mitigate misunderstandings. Isolation and the sense that text is read by all members intensifies the feeling of being “outed” by the network.

Challenges that inhibit building a learning organisation involve providing a solution to issues such as time constraints, access to colleagues for collaboration, leadership support and the provision of relevant learning opportunities (Roberts & Pruitt, 2009; Senge, 2000) that include individual “reflective places where teachers can select the training they need to improve teaching and learning” (Senge, 2000, p. 385).

Downes also states that learning networks “in general, the uptake has been slow, and the support from traditional institutions almost nonexistent”. In a professional context there is a persistent fear by management that work time will be taken socialising online, affecting productivity. Issues of privacy and competitive environments also challenge management to understand the potential productivity gained through collaboration and shared problem solving. Senge’s “five key disciplines of organisational learning”(Senge, 2000, p. 7) provide the most functional practices for developing the skills and capacity required to facilitate a dynamic and productive learning community.

Taking into consideration individual rights, sensitivities, need, and desires challenges a learning network to maintain focus on community rights, sensitivities, need and desires. Leadership that refocuses the learning while being sensitive to individual need and at the same time accurately reads the holistic direction of the network is required maintain professional learning networks that facilitate reflection, evaluation and shared professional dialogue to implement educational change (Senge, 2000).
 * * Personal Mastery aims to provide a dual awareness through a “set of practices that support people–children and adults-in keeping their dreams whole while cultivating an awareness of the current reality around them” (ibid, p.59). This discipline attracts people as they feel it provides a focus on individual learning but it also creates a tension between personal development and “organisational commitment to the truth” (ibid, p.60).
 * Mental Models are “tacit, existing below the level of awareness” (ibid. p.67) and sharing mental models provides a process for examining our own and other people’s assumptions, reasons and strategies. Evaluating and reflecting on this information in an open and supportive environment creates opportunities for change.
 * Shared Vision is a “set of tools and techniques for bringing disparate aspirations together in alignment around the things people have in common.” (ibid, p.72). Creating a shared vision not only gives an educational facility a way to articulate its purpose, it also sharpens the focus on the main goal(s) instead of allowing peripheral activities to flourish that fracture and dissipate people’s energy and commitment.
 * Team Learning exists, often without acknowledgement, in educational environments. The discipline involves “regularly transforming day-to-day communication skills: taking existing conversations, for example and conducting them in new ways” (ibid, p.76).
 * Systems Thinking, provides a holistic vision of the interconnectedness of all functions working together as a whole. It offers “more effective leverage than a ‘short-attention span culture’ generally permits” (ibid, p.78), effective contingency planning for the future through an in depth understanding of patterns and trends, cause and effect relationships and stock and informative flow models (ibid, p.81-90). || [[image:Senge.jpg]] ||

References:
Chatti, M. A., Jarke, M., & Specht, M. (2010). The 3P Learning Model. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (4), pp. 74–85.

Downes, S. (2005). E-learning 2.0. //eLearn Magazine, Oct.// [|//http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1//]

McLaughlin, Catherine & Lee, Mark J.W. (2010) Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software Australasian Journal of Educational Technology Vol 26, #1 pp 28-43

Roberts, S., & Pruitt, E. (2009). //Schools as Professional Learning Communities: collaborative activities and strategies for professional development//. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Salavuo, Miikka (2008) Social Media as an opportunity for pedagogical change in music education //Journal of Music, Technology and Education// Vol 1 # 2-3 pp. 121 - 134

Senge, P. (2000). //Schools that Learn//. New York: Doubleday.

Siemens, G. (2006) Connectivism: Learning Theory or Pastime of Self-Amused? Downloaded from [|__http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism_self-amused.htm__] on August 20, 2011

Stuckey, B. & Arkell, R. (2006) Development of an E-Learning Knowledge sharing model: Australian Flexible Learning Framework. @http://www.flexiblelearning.net.au/%20.../kjohnson/public/Development_of_an%20e-learning_knowledge_sharing_model.pdf. Accessed October 22, 2011

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). //Cultivating Communities of Practice//. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.