Ravensbourne College

There was a time, not so long ago, when a VLE meant many things to
many different people. Now, a VLE means Moodle or Blackboard. Today
"PLE" comprehends many different, and some contradictory, visions.
For us, a PLE has the characteristics of being built from components
that are simple, flexible, specific, and personalisable. Though we
remain open-minded, we don't believe these are features of
institutional systems.

We envisage a "radical simplicity" built on technologies that are
"good enough" - RSS or APP, for example - and on systems that can
exist just as easily outside the institution as inside it. With a
little bit of microformats or RDF/a secret sauce, the radically
simple can become really useful.

There are many problems we acknowledge are unsolved - legal and
accessibility issues loom large in our thoughts, and assessment
raises a host of significant issues. Our experiences so far suggest
that some pedagogical and usage issues, though, are soluable through
learning design practice and greater staff experience, and
involvement with, Web 2.0 and social technologies. The role of the
educator is, in part, as an interpreter of experience, not as a
chooser the One True Platform. Many problems arise from making
choices on behalf of leaners, rather than supporting learners in
distilling what is meaningful and valuable out of their own
experiences and activities.

Perhaps, if there are problems, the PLE is a red herring. Stick with
the VLE and all will be well. We know that students establish extra-
institutional activities in social software like MySpace and
Facebook, and, where appropriate, we would rather incorporate these
activities into the learning experience, and, from time to time, add
value to them. Perhaps the learners have more to teach us than the
names of their favourite bands!

To get there, we are beginning to explore the concept of a PIE
(personal instructional environment) - that is, a personal synthesis
of Web 2.0 tools and social software into an environment for
educators to manage themselves, and the learning content they create.
In part we want to suggest possibilities, and encourage adoption. We
also want to reduce concerns over "rejectionism" and show that not
all achievements need be built on institutional platforms, nor are
these platforms necessarily threatened if they are not all embracing.