The PLE, has then two roles in relationship with the ZPD:
It helps in building the inner structure of the ZPD, its components. It helps in building the outer structure of the ZPD, its boundaries.
There is a sort of corollary to the previous second statement. In Vygotsky’s time, learning — and hence the ZPD — was sort of linear: woodcarving apprentices would move “up” to a new master craftsman once they had mastered some skills themselves with the help of their previous/actual master. Progress would end when there were no more master craftsmen around whom to learn from. On the other hand, learning with a human, flesh and blood, present more knowledgeable other meant not only that you had to “use them up” but that you could not “consume” any other more knowledgeable other: learning was unidirectional, linear.
When MKOs are conformed by all kind of tacit and explicit knowledge constructs in one’s PLE, there is no way of (a) “using them up” and (b) not being able to move in parallel with more than one more knowledgeable other. We can then think of the PLE both as the biggest ZPD possible, or as the overlapping of different snapshots of a PLE that evolves “fractalically”, multidirectionally, on time, on demand, until it (potentially) covers the whole cyberlandscape.
La « meta-analyse » (démarche statistiques combinant les résultats d’une série d’études indépendantes sur un problème donné, wikipedia) de 355 études montre que le facteur d’apprentissage le plus important est la qualité de la conception, plus que la modalité - présentiel ou formation en ligne (T§D, avril 2012).
Une autre meta-analyse menée par le Département de l’Education des Etats-Unis montre une supériorité du « blended » sur la formation purement en ligne ou sur la formation purement présentielle (les résultats en terme d’apprentissage de ces deux dernières modalités étant statistiquement équivalents).
As we continue to discuss important issues such as access, affordability, and personalized learning in higher education, we would be helped by having a richer understanding of the changes that are already occurring. I would like to offer a more descriptive view to capture the growing number of approaches enabled by educational technology. The following is certainly not exhaustive, since the field is rapidly changing. In addition, not all of these models will end up thriving in the long term. My intention is simply to describe some of the primary models and ideally to reduce some of the confusion evident in public discussions.
What does this emerging landscape of educational delivery models look like? I have categorized the models not just in terms of modality—ranging from face-to-face to fully online—but also in terms of the method of course design (see Figure 1). These two dimensions allow a richer understanding of the new landscape of educational delivery models. Within this landscape, the following primary models have emerged: ad hoc online courses and programs, fully online programs, School-as-a-Service, educational partnerships, competency-based education, blended/hybrid courses and the flipped classroom, and MOOCs
"El objetivo de este artículo es valorar las debilidades y fortalezas del conectivismo para mejorar el proceso de enseñanza- aprendizaje. El conectivismo describe el aprendizaje como un proceso de creación de una red de conocimiento personal, una idea coherente con la forma en la que las personas enseñamos y aprendemos en la web 2.0. Sin embargo, aunque constituye una opción interesante para lograr un aprendizaje centrado en el alumno, hay un conjunto de aspectos que dificultan su adopción".
Two online resources providing guidance on large-scale implementation of e-portfolio tools in UK further and higher education are available to supplement the 2008 JISC publication, Effective Practice with e-Portfolios
The online resources, five video case-studies and an online toolkit for managers and practitioners, explore the issues, challenges and benefits of scaling up e-portfolio use across a university or college, and offer opportunities to explore the pros and cons of different approaches and methodologies.