1 / 16

A Conceptual Framework for the integration of the 2.0 Web Tools in Lifelong Learning Scenarios

A Conceptual Framework for the integration of the 2.0 Web Tools in Lifelong Learning Scenarios. M. Pérez-Sanagustín, P. Santos , A. Moghnieh, D. Hernández-Leo & J. Blat TENCompetence – Sofia workshop October 2008. Index. I. Motivation II. Aim III. KRSM’s Activity Contexts

tallys
Download Presentation

A Conceptual Framework for the integration of the 2.0 Web Tools in Lifelong Learning Scenarios

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Conceptual Framework for the integration of the 2.0 Web Tools in Lifelong Learning Scenarios M. Pérez-Sanagustín, P. Santos, A. Moghnieh, D. Hernández-Leo & J. Blat TENCompetence – Sofia workshopOctober 2008

  2. Index • I. Motivation • II. Aim • III. KRSM’s Activity Contexts • IV. Drawing a Selection Criterion • V. Conclusion

  3. I. Motivation • Web as a user-centered platform for managing information • New interactions based on collaboration and cooperation through Web 2.0 • New Space for Knowledge building

  4. II. Aim • Context: Need of a flexible Knowledge Resource System Management (KRSM) in a Lifelong Learning context adapted to the diversity of learner’s necessities. • Problem: How can we use the Web 2.0 potential so that they can be integrated into a KRSM for supporting these different educational needs? • Proposal: A Conceptual Framework for the integration of Web 2.0 tools in learning environments adapted to the learner’s educational necessities

  5. III. KRSM’s Activity Contexts 1. Relate the educational needs of the users in the KRSM scenarios with the activities supported by the Web 2.0 services

  6. III. KRSM’s Activity Contexts 1. Identify the activities that arise from the educational needs in the KRSM scenario and relate them with the activities supported by Web 2.0 services

  7. III. KRSM’s Activity Contexts 1. Relate the educational needs of the users in the KRSM scenarios with the activities supported by the Web 2.0 services 2. Cluster the educational needs in three Activity Context (AC) depending on the activities they engender

  8. Educational needs Knowledge mining Knowledge transfer Tag Knowledge personalization Download Filter/sort Filter by tags Search Knowledge mining Edit/Write Create Comment Knowledge personalization Knowledge transfer Bookmark Publish/ Upload Rate III. KRSM’s Activity Contexts 2. Cluster the educational need in three AC depending on the activities they engender. 3 Activity contexts

  9. III. KRSM’s Activity Contexts 1. Relate the educational needs of the users in the KRSM scenarios with the activities supported by the Web 2.0 services 2. Cluster the educational needs in three Activity Context (AC) depending on the activities they engender 3. Each primitive activity determine the type of resources, Knowledge Objects (KO), that are manipulated in each AC

  10. III. KRSM’s Activity Contexts • 3. Each primitive activity determine the type of resources, Knowledge Objects (KO), that are manipulated in each AC Which are the group of Web 2.0 tools that we should choose for covering all the ACs’ functionalities? Select is the common activity that the user performs over any KO and which connect all the AC

  11. IV. Drawing a selection criterion 5 1 2 3 4 Pre-filtering Filtering Activity-centered filtering KO-centered filtering TOOLS 2 & 1 TOOLS 5,2 & 3

  12. IV.Drawing a selection criterionPre-filtering • Select the tool that covers the maximum number of primitive activities in an AC • A service is selected if it handles the maximum number of KOs managed in this context • All the primitive activities and KOs have to be covered by the minimum Web 2.0 tools

  13. IV.Drawing a selection criterionFiltering KO-Centered Fitering The service has to cover the maximum number of technical requirements of the selected KO. The service would be that one that covers the maximum numbers of activity context which treat the selected KOs Follow steps 1 and 2 till you reach your learning goal Activity-Centered Fitering • The service has to offer the functionalities to cover the selected primitive activity • The best service would be the one that covers the maximum number of KOs for the selected primitive activity • Follow steps 1 and 2 till you reach your learning goal

  14. IV.Drawing a selection criterionAn example

  15. V. Conclusion • A preliminary framework for the selection and integration of Web 2.0 services in a Technology Supported Learning Environment • The framework can be applied in different educational scenarios • The framework has provided a support to conceptualize the LearnWeb2.0 tool of WP5 • An evaluation of this framework is planned in order to extract more requirements.

  16. Thank you!

More Related