CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk
Provided by ULCC Publications Archive

T H E I N T E R N AT I O N A L

JOURNAL
of TECHNOLOGY Knowledge & Society

Volume 7

Personalised Learning: Developing a Vygotskian

Framework for E-learning

James Ballard and Philip Butler

www.Technology-Journal.com
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIETY
http://www.Technology-Journal.com

First published in 2011 in Champaign, Illinois, USA

by Common Ground Publishing LLC
www.CommonGroundPublishing.com

ISSN: 1832-3669

© 2011 (individual papers), the author(s)

© 2011 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism
or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may
be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. For
permissions and other inquiries, please contact
<cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>.

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIETY is

peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking
and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest
substance and highest significance is published.

Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGPublisher multichannel

typesetting system
http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/
Personalised Learning: Developing a Vygotskian
Framework for E-learning
James Ballard, University of London Computer Centre, UK
Philip Butler, University of London Computer Centre, UK

Abstract: Personalisation has emerged as a central feature of recent educational strategies in the UK
and abroad. At the heart of this is a vision to empower learners to take more ownership of their
learning and develop autonomy. While the introduction of digital technologies is not enough to effect
this change, embedding the affordances of new technologies is expected to offer new routes for creating
personalised learning environments. The approach is not unique to education, with consumer techno-
logies offering a 'personalised' relationship which is both engaging and dynamic, however the challenge
remains for learning providers to capture and transpose this to educational contexts. As learners begin
to utilise a range of tools to pursue communicative and collaborative actions, the first part of this paper
will use analysis of activity logs to uncover interesting trends for maturing e-learning platforms across
over 100 UK learning providers. While personalisation appeals to marketing theories this paper will
argue that if learning is to become personalised one must ask what the optimal instruction for any
particular learner is? For Vygotsky this is based in the zone of proximal development, a way of under-
standing the causal-dynamics of development that allow appropriate pedagogical interventions. The
second part of this paper will interpret personalised learning as the organising principle for a sense-
making framework for e-learning. In this approach personalised learning provides the context for as-
sessing the capabilities of e-learning using Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development as the framework
for assessing learner potential and development.

Keywords: Personalisation, Personalised Learning, Zone of Proximal Development, e-Learning, Vir-

tual Learning Environment, Individual Learning Plan, e-Assessment, e-Portfolio

Introduction

F
ROM 2004, PERSONALISATION became the national agenda for transforming
delivery of public services (Leadbeater, 2004a) with personalised learning emerging
as ‘THE big idea in education today’ (NCSL, 2005, p.11) and made possible through
communication technology (DfES, 2005). The focus on personal choice within this
agenda is often contradictory to personalised learning, which in essence must seek to discover
and deliver the optimal instruction for a particular learner. Chaiklin (2003) recognises the
profound difficulties this presents, encompassing: the political goals of instruction; resources
available; an understanding of how intellectual capabilities develop; and a theory on the re-
lationship between subject instruction and psychological development.
This article seeks to develop a framework for e-learning that can be used to make sense
of how technology may support the delivery of personalised learning. First, the political
goals of instruction shall be outlined through the government strategy and supporting reports.
The debate will be placed within the context of sociocultural discourse to highlight contra-
dictions and difficulties for practice arguing that the strategy presents an inconsistent view

The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society

Volume 7, 2011, http://www.Technology-Journal.com, ISSN 1832-3669
© Common Ground, James Ballard, Philip Butler, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:
cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIETY

of choice and lacks theories to support a pedagogy. The second part of the essay will present
Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) and doctrine of concept formation in re-
sponse to this, introducing three assessment models to complement traditional summative
assessment. The final part will explore the implications for e-learning through a sense-
making framework that also draws on theories of complexity, knowledge production, and
marketing.

The Personalisation Agenda

The Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners sets out the vision for an education system
whose central characteristic will be personalisation: a system which fits to the individual
and not the individual to the system (DfES, 2004a). Every learner will achieve their potential
in line with the Every Child Matters framework: be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve,
make a positive contribution and achieve economic well-being (DfES, 2004b). The trans-
formation to personalise learning is not technology driven, however the strategy acknowledges
that ambitious and innovative use of technology will be central to its implementation. The
subsequent Harnessing Technology strategy elaborates the role of ICT through four objectives:
transform teaching and learning; engage hard to reach learners; build an open and accessible
system; and develop efficiencies and effectiveness (DfES, 2005).
E-learning will engage learners through the provision of authentic and challenging tasks,
and engage teachers through innovative curricula and assessment practice, while e-delivery
will improve how we provide information and deliver real-time tracking to inform personal-
ised feedback (DfES, 2005). High investment (HEFCE, 2008; Becta, 2010a & 2010b) should
see learning providers ‘enabled’ to use technology through infrastructure and system integ-
ration, while ‘confident’ learning providers will be facilitating learners to develop their online
personal learning space (Becta, 2008). The transformation comes to represent a moral purpose
for social justice where lack of engagement and the failure to equip learners with necessary
skills will result in unacceptable attainment gaps (DfES, 2006).
The pedagogy of personalisation should address how students learn, what students learn,
and how we assess what their learning needs are (DfES, 2007). This promotes a solution
based on choice: more ways to learn; more subjects to choose from; and more flexible study
integrated through an online personal learning space (DfES, 2005), which offers more variety
of resources, software, communication tools, and assessment (DfES, 2007) that learners can
access anytime, anywhere (Becta, 2008). 21st century skills for a knowledge economy will
require students to progress from dependence on teachers and adults into independent learners
capable of adapting to the changing needs of society (DfES, 2007). Finally, established ‘as-
sessment of learning’ practice through standardised tests should be complemented with ‘as-
sessment for learning’ practices that allow learners to monitor and manage their own progress
and encourage a lifelong appetite for learning (DfES, 2007).

Contradictions and Difficulties

Poster (1995a) heralds the Internet as part of a second media age where passive consumers
become interactive communicators, upsetting the logic of understanding of the first media
age. In the second media age interactivity dominates and rather than obtaining information
electronically, communicating by computer claims the intense interest of countless thousands.
 JAMES BALLARD, PHILIP BUTLER

Green, Facer, Rudd, Dillon & Humphreys (2005) suggest that without these communication
and multimedia affordances of technology, it is unlikely that personalised learning spaces
can be enabled. This intertwining of personalised learning and internet technology is adopted
throughout the strategy with learners perceived as less passive and deferential and where
new curricula and technology enhance collaboration and creative learning (DfES 2006). The
first difficulty is that in adopting postmodern paradigms of multiplicity, plurality, and decent-
ralisation, personalised learning must clash with and may be limited by existing perspectives
of modernity.
The second difficulty is that Poster’s (1995b) Internet resists the basic conditions for
asking the question of the effects of technology. In reconfiguring the relation of technology
to culture it is suggested that the only way to define the technological effects of the Internet
is to build the Internet. Between the ‘Computopia’ of Yonegi Masuda (1985) –where growth
in technology leads to an improved life for all– and Jean-Francois Lyotard’s (1984) ‘Big
Brother Society’ –where the norms and values of people are produced and reproduced,
contained, controlled and dominated by elusive forces– lie sociocultural assessments of the
impact of technology. Through examining the interactions between agent and cultural tools,
as mediated action, one can avoid the risk of destroying the phenomenon under observation
that may arise from a reductionist approach (Werstch, 1998; Jaros & Deakin-Crick, 2007).
Personalised learning simultaneously serves the multiple goals of government, learners,
teachers, leaders, and technological innovation which cannot exist as independent elements
of analysis and may often be in conflict. One cannot therefore organise analysis around a
single identifiable goal and the emphasis is not whether personalised learning is an oppor-
tunity or a threat, but rather how and to what extent can we analyse the transformations
taking place, and make out the powers that control them (Holub, 1992).
The strategy drives personalisation through two choice agendas: one is a learner’s choice
for learning opportunities (experience) and the other a family’s choice of a particular school
(social institution) (Harris and Ranson, 2005). This marketisation of education places indi-
vidual demands over social needs (Hartley, 2008), and promotes values -such as self-motiv-
ation, self-regulation, and educational progress, that are not equally distributed among dif-
ferent classes and cultures in English society (Campbell, Robinson, Neelands, Hewston, &
Mazzoli, 2007). Leadbeater (2006) warns that applying market consumerism to education
may compromise principles of equity, reinforcing existing power hierarchies through the
likelihood of continued, if not increased, educational disadvantage.
Katz and Assor (2006) find the benefits of choice to be equivocal and confusing and
through self-determination theory argue that the mode and structure of choice should allow
learner preference realisation, present an optimal challenge, and account for multicultural
experience. This may sit uneasily with a national curriculum and testing programme dominated
by age-relatedness (Campbell et al., 2007). Alternatively, Green et al. (2005) view personal-
ised learning as a system that adapts to the needs of learners, representing the consumers of
Pine, Peppers and Rogers (1995) who instead of choice, want exactly what they want - when,
where and how they want it. This involves learning about goals and preferences and evolving
an offering mapped to these. However, as disadvantaged learners are least likely to seek help
(Ryan, Pintrich & Midgley, 2001) poorly structured choice or loss of preference data may
actively reduce the scope for the collective action most likely to address structural predica-
ments of class and educational opportunity (Campbell et al., 2007).
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIETY

The first implication for the e-learning framework is that data integration and user interac-
tion with choice must be accessible, where presenting superficial choice risks being negatively
perceived and should be avoided. The framework should seek to optimise needs-satisfaction
rather than offer choice for its own sake.

A Pedagogy for Personalised Learning

The political inconsistencies provide a point of departure, where this essay will attempt to
redress the lack of pedagogy (Hartley, 2009) through Vygotky’s theory of learning and de-
velopment. The implications for technology will then be explored to create a sense-making
framework that may redress the inherent conceptual elasticity of the strategy (Hartley, 2007).
It is hoped a sociocultural approach to educational theory and technology frameworks will
afford teachers and learners the pursuit of goals consistent with optimal personalised learning.
This is discussed in relation to the three centres of personalised learning: learner-centred,
knowledge-centred and assessment-centred (DfES, 2006).

Learner-centred: How Children and Young People Learn

Vygotsky (1978) views the essence of cognitive education as providing students with new
psychological tools. The development of higher-order thinking is based on mediating agents
in the learner’s interaction with the environment, supplanting previous models which portray
the learner as a passive recipient of pre-packaged knowledge (Kozulin, 2003). Vygotsky
(1978) is explicit that the development of higher-order thinking is dependent on appropriate
interactions, which can be identified through the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).
The ZPD conceptualises learning potential through collaboration with more capable peers
where taught subjects relate differently to development and teaching should be aimed at future
(ripening) rather than past (ripe) functions (Vygotksy, 1978 & 1986). For a Vygotskian
personalised learning pedagogy ‘the only good kind of instruction is that which marches
ahead of development and leads it’ (Vygotsky, 1986, p.188).
The difficulty is that Vygotsky’s account does not allow the level of potential development,
and hence the ZPD in general, to be defined in any precise way. To resolve this Wertsch
(1984) introduces three theoretical constructs: situation definition, intersubjectivity, and se-
miotic mediation. The situation definition describes the way in which objects are represented
and the actions operated on those objects. During collaborative action the ZPD is defined
through differences between the situation definition of the learner and the more capable
other. Rather than quantitative increments to the situation definition, developmental growth
requires the learner to replace the existing situation definition with a qualitatively new one.
Importantly the ZPD is never located solely within the learner, shifting the focus of instruction
from transmission of competence or knowledge to understanding the meaning of assistance
in relation to an individual’s learning and development (Chaiklin, 2003). For this to be ef-
fective requires the learner as active participant and assistance or instruction to be personalised
to the individual’s ZPD through intersubjectivity. This is Vygotsky’s (1978) most essential
feature of instructed learning: to awaken a variety of internal processes that only operate
during social interaction, creating a ZPD the processes of which, once internalised will become
part of the learner’s independent developmental achievement.
 JAMES BALLARD, PHILIP BUTLER

A second essential feature is the highly complex dynamic relations between development
and learning with development never following instructed learning in a fashion that can
formulated. An ideal approach would reveal ‘how developmental processes stimulated by
the course of school learning are carried through inside the head of each individual child’
(ibid. p.91, [emphasis added]). An approach to this can be found in Vygotsky’s (1986) study
of concept formation. Concept formation, in which all the basic intellectual processes take
part, must be viewed as a function of the learner’s total social and cultural growth affecting
not only the content but also the method of thinking. Vygotsky identifies three basic phases
in the ascent to concept formation. In the first phase a learner forms syncretic images or un-
organised congeries characterised by a tendency to merge diverse elements into an articulated
image based on some chance impression. During the second complex thinking phase the
learner begins to organise objects based on actually existing bonds rather than subjective
impressions. In the final phase genuine concept formation occurs when mastery of abstraction
is combined with advanced complex thinking (see table 1). The transition from complexes
to concepts is not a mechanical process and even as true concepts are formed a student has
learned to produce concepts, they do not wholly abandon the more elementary forms (Vy-
gotsky, 1986). This should inform an understanding of the nature of assistance required with
the teacher and learner working together to bring the learner from their initial level to the
most independent activity they can achieve (Campione, Brown, Ferrara & Bryant, 1984).

Table 1: Phases and Stages of Concept Formation (adapted from Vygotsky, 1986)
Phase Stage
1 Syncretic image formation or unorgan- 1.1 Trial and error
ised congeries 1.2 Perceptual organisation
1.3 Complex base
2 Complex formation 2.1 Associative
2.2 Collections
2.3 Chain
2.4 Diffuse
2.5 Pseudoconcept
3 Concept Formation 3.1 Abstraction
3.2 Potential concepts
3.3 True concepts

Tharp and Gallimore (1991) approach this through instructional conversation, a model for
teaching where the activity setting is optimised for learners to achieve independent mastery
through dialogue. As the learning process is alive and unfolding teachers can assist as they
see and feel the learner’s progression (or lack of) through the ZPD. Often scaffolding (Chi,
1996) – a concept evolved from mediated learning (Kozulin, 2003) – is used to provide a
metascript (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) for collaborative dialogue. This offers a non-prescript-
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIETY

ive structure for learners to express their voice (situated definition), while prompting or
guiding higher level discussions where Rourke and Coleman (2010) highlight how this can
be used to enhance online learning. Laurillard’s (2002) conversational framework provides
a further example of how feedback can establish the relevant stage of concept formation for
a learner (in particular pp.55-60).
The second implication for the e-learning framework is that it must facilitate communic-
ation and collaboration, not for their own sake but in the context of learning dialogues. It is
not the interaction, per se, that influences instructional interventions but understanding of
the meaning of that assistance or interaction through the ZPD. Karpov (2003) emphasises
this as the importance of maintaining a distinction between Piagetian guided discovery and
Vygostkian instructional conversation.

Knowledge-centred: What Students (Need to) Learn

Vygotsky (1986) differs his work on one crucial aspect from Piaget in that for him instruction
and development cannot be separated. In exploring both structure and function Vygotsky
works with the assumption that what one intends to learn must determine to an extent how
one learns it, thus allowing the problem of development and instruction to be resolved. Sci-
entific concepts as a product of instruction are conscious and deliberate by nature, whereas
spontaneous concepts as the product of experience are situational, empirical, and practical.
The two concepts are closely connected and develop in reverse directions with spontaneous
concepts working upwards to clear the way for scientific concepts, as scientific concepts
work downwards to supply structure for spontaneous concepts. The two systems ‘reveal
their real nature in the interrelations between actual development and the zone of proximal
development’ (.ibid. pg. 194). Karpov (2003) suggests that for Vygotksy and his followers
the question of ‘how to teach’ is secondary to the question of ‘what knowledge learners
should acquire’.
The personalised learning strategy introduces a distinction between subject skills and the
‘soft skills’ required by the workplace: communication, teamwork, independent working,
problem-solving, creativity, perseverance, and managing personal development (DfES, 2005
& 2006). One may analogise this with Gibbons et al.’s (1994) disciplinary (mode 1) and
trans-disciplinary (mode 2) knowledge, which Jackson and Ward (2004) extend into the idea
that learning underlies production and use of both modes of knowledge in a world in which
‘knowing what and how to learn the next thing is as important as what has already been
learnt’ (p.424). In this world learning should contain directed, self-directed and collaborative
activity. In the Vygotkskian approach collaboration already contains directed and self-directed
processes through scientific concepts and spontaneous concepts. For Vygotsky (1978 &
1986) each subject has its own relation to development where disciplinary learning through
scientific concepts gradually transforms the structure of spontaneous concepts, aiding the
ascent into higher trans-disciplinary thinking. Instruction should result in the mastery of
meaningful and broadly transferable scientific knowledge to be used for the analysis of
subject-domain phenomenon (Karpov, 2003).
Hattie, Biggs and Purdie (1996), in their meta-analysis, provide support for this through
findings that situated cognition - where learners are made aware of the importance of using
appropriate strategies relevant to the context of the subject domain - is most successful in
metacogntivie development. Equally, Jaros and Deakin-Crick (2007) present an object-based,
 JAMES BALLARD, PHILIP BUTLER

archaeological method of inquiry that connects the subjective, authentic, personal interests
of learners with the world as modelled by schools and universities (Jaros, 2009). Although
it is suggested this bottom-up approach opposes the top-down positivistic canon, these ex-
amples may be explained through Vygotsky’s reverse motion of spontaneous and scientific
concepts.
The third implication for the framework is that for Vygotsky an independent learner is
the result of school learning rather than a premise for it (Kozulin, 1995). This must allow
appropriate expression of spontaneous and scientific concepts with both seen as aspects of
the same developmental process (Vygotsky, 1986).

Assessment-centred: Learners’ Achievement and their Learning Needs

Vygotsky (1978) is critical of assessment practice which targets already matured functions
as being ineffective to overall development. In this argument what the learner already knows
and is capable of demonstrating during independent activity (e.g. examination) gives no in-
dication of the appropriate interventions to progress that learner to the next developmental
level. Vygotsky contributes a model of assisted assessment through the ZPD to reveal the
maturing functions of the next development period. These functions are not created by the
interaction; rather interaction provides conditions for identifying their existence and the extent
to which they have been developed (Chaiklin, 2003). Vygotsky (1986) finds such assessment
can identify the emerging functions within a learner that are most receptive to instruction
and should be the focus of learning. Learning leads to development as the external interper-
sonal operations enabled through collaboration are internalised as intrapersonal process
(Vygotsky, 1978). Development thus proceeds as a spiral passing through the same point
while advancing to higher levels. Allal and Pelgrims Ducrey (2000) identify two strands of
assessment related to the ZPD: dynamic assessment and formative assessment, while Habib
and Witteck (2007) highlight the role portfolio assessment might play in assessing metacog-
nitive development. As Black (1998) argues the ‘assessment for learning’ functions should
be considered on the same spectrum, along with summative assessment rather than in isolation.

Dynamic Assessment (Integrating Teaching within Assessment)

Vytgotsky (1978) criticises standardised testing for its orientation towards completed devel-
opmental stages. Such testing approaches inappropriately equalise neutral and cultural pro-
cesses (Gindis, 2003). Dynamic assessment offers an alternative approach providing diagnosis
of learning difficulties and prediction of learning potential and represents assessment of the
ZPD (Allal and Pelgrims Ducrey, 2000). Feuerstein (1979) and Lidz (1987) provide extensive
coverage of dynamic assessment; Lidz (1992) finds that mediation during assessment is as-
sociated with improved performance and, like Vygotsky, that static levels performance scores
do not indicate how much an individual can change. Similarly Carlson and Wiedl (1992)
argue that performance at any given time is only an approximation of an individual’s capacity
and interpret this through the Hebb-Vernon framework of Intelligences A, B, and C. Intelli-
gence A represents an individual’s biological potential, Intelligence B an individual’s actual
intelligence, and Intelligence C their performance on mental ability measures. Dynamic as-
sessment aims to optimise assessment (Allal & Pelgrims Ducrey, 2000) so that the objects
of assessment (Intelligence C) better represent the individual’s potential (Intelligence B).
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIETY

Such testing approaches can only be defined for specific groups of individuals and applied
effectively may address poor performance resulting from social or cultural deprivation
(Gindis, 2003). This sociocultural approach to assessment may help redress increasing attain-
ment gaps across socioeconomic groups (DfES, 2006).

Formative Assessment (Integrating Assessment within Teaching)

For Vygotsky (1978) cultural development appears twice in a learner: first between people
(interpsychological); and second inside the learner (intrapsychological). When a learner,
during interaction, represents objects and events with a different situation definition from
the teacher it would seem to be counterproductive for the teacher to simply reintroduce their
own situation definition (Wertsch, 1984). Formative assessment occurs within the ZPD
during collaboration and is thus concerned with a learner’s responsiveness to instruction
(Allal and Pelgrims Ducrey, 2000). Black and Wiliam (1998) find that effective formative
feedback is shown to increase learning gains, although innovations will depend on the
quality of dialogue. Learning can be improved while it is happening with students able to
plan their learning, identify strengths and weaknesses, target areas for remedial action, and
develop transferable skills (Topping, 1998) with the contribution of instruction to learner
development assessed through performance in subsequent tasks. .

Portfolio Assessment (Integrating Assessment within Learning)

For Vygotsky (1986) the greatest difficulty for instruction is that once a concept is finally
grasped and formulated on the abstract level the application of it to new concrete situations
remains problematic. Wertsch (1998) explains this through elaboration of Vygotsky’s inter-
nalisation as mastery and appropriation, which need not be directly correlated. A learner
may master a concept without utilising it in other contexts, however if appropriated the
learner, having identified with the value of the concept, will be motivated to utilise it in new
situations. In this approach the student portfolio, as a narrative, operates as an authentic
cultural tool with authenticity maintained through encouraging the learner to contribute their
ideas to the discussion rather than present correct answers (Nystrand, 1997). The portfolio
represents an example of Säljö’s (1999) mediational means - a cultural artefact that must be
understood as simultaneously physical (product) and intellectual (process) in nature. Using
Wartofsky’s (1979) taxonomy primary artefacts are identified as the tools used (e.g. collated
objects and e-portfolio software); and secondary artefacts are representations of these, either
through learner narrative (translation) or teacher-led programs of action or scaffolding (in-
scription). Habib and Witteck (2007) propose that while heavy inscription may be perceived
as such and resisted, greater translation will accord with learner goals, backgrounds, and
values. Tertiary artefacts, or the use of concepts in new contexts, result almost exclusively
from translation where learners demonstrate varied levels of mastery but are likely to
demonstrate high levels of appropriation. As the learner is furnished with the secondary and
tertiary artefacts necessary for the qualitative transformation of their activity systems, the
portfolio should come to represent Engeström’s (1987) journey through zones of proximal
development capturing the continual redefinition of developing concepts and providing au-
thentic opportunities to apply developed concepts to new situations.
 JAMES BALLARD, PHILIP BUTLER

The final implication for the framework draws on the importance of the capable peer as
an assessment parameter in Vygotsky’s theory. The assessment methods presented here are
complementary and the framework should seek to integrate them effectively with awareness
provided for understanding and managing the effects of inscription and translation in system
design.

A Framework for e-Learning

The framework introduces three guiding principles for the processes of e-learning (see table
2): (1) focus highlights the type if discourse and is based on Stacey’s (2002) complexity
matrix (see figure 1) overlaid by knowledge production theory (Jackson & Ward, 2004); (2)
ownership outlines affordances for inscription and/or translation using Gilmore and Pine’s
(1997) customisation matrix (see figure 2) - where teacher ownership is high dialogue is
likely to offer more scaffolding and where learner ownership expression should be encouraged
to improve authenticity; and (3) the type of assessment as a pedagogical boundary.

Table 2: Personalised Learning Framework

Tool Focus (decision making) Ownership (customisation) Assessment
1 VLE Rational Transparent Dynamic
2 ILP Judgemental Adaptive Formative
3 e-Assessment Political Cosmetic Summative
4 e-Portfolio Complex Collaborative Portfolio

The VLE (JISC, 2009), implemented in 98% of FE colleges (Becta, 2010a) and 93% of
schools (Becta, 2010b), supports instructional delivery focusing on disciplinary knowledge
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIETY

and can be described as rational where progress is monitored against well defined learning
outcomes. Dynamic assessment should identify learning needs with transparent customisation
allowing the teacher to differentiate activities to address these needs and account for different
learning styles.
The Individual Learning Plan (ILP) was introduced as a formative assessment tool
(Hamilton, 2009) providing scaffolding to heighten learner awareness (Bullock & Jamieson,
1998) and essential recording of discussions for continuity and structure through subsequent
activities (Bullock & Jamieson, 1995). The dialogic structure is judgemental creating a shared
vision for future development which is not predetermined and can only be judged in relation
to that vision. Customisation is adaptive where learners use standard tools of development
planning (target setting, progress review, etc.) to create a unique learning path.
e-Assessment (JISC, 2007b) responds to summative assessment requirements for measuring
objective progress against standardised external criteria. This process is political with out-
comes derived from established frameworks that require negotiation to ensure these are
shared by the learner. The customisation is cosmetic where the same product (assessment)
may be presented in different ways but is not fundamentally altered.
The e-Portfolio offers a collection of objects presented through narrative and representing
a product and process of learning (JISC 2008 & Barrett 2010). As a collaborative space this
allows learners to participate in the design stage exploring ideas and concepts that involve
complex processes representative of creativity, reflection, and new modes of operating. The
portfolio assessment framework is particularly useful for transdisciplinary projects (Ridgway,
McCusker, & Pead, 2004) such as enquiry based learning (see Jaros & Deakin-Crick, 2007;
Hutchings, 2007).

Informing Transformation
Young people are positive about technology and expect to use it to support their learning,
however they are very quick to understand when it is a genuine and integrated learning aid
rather than technology for technology’s sake (JISC, 2007a; NUS 2010). Teachers are also
increasingly positive about the role of technology and its potential to personalise learning,
actively voicing requirements for training to enhance their use of new and existing technolo-
gies (Becta 2010a & 2010b). While it is easier to implement reforms that merely increase
system efficiency, e-learning as mediational means (Wertsch, 1998) may free learning from
earlier limitations and transform the role relationships between teacher and learner envisaged
by deep personalisation (Campbell et al., 2007). McLuhan (1967) proposes that electronic
technologies will reshape education shifting the focus from instruction to discovery, echoed
in Sfard’s (1998) metaphors of learning: the acquisition metaphor and the participation
metaphor. For Papert and Harel (1991) this forms part of wider philosophical discourses on
the nature of knowledge (method) and the nature of knowing (epistemology) - not only do
people want the right to think what they please, they want to think in their own ways.
Transformation must resist a commodification of knowledge that attributes knowledge with
a permanent quality reinforcing the privileged power position of its owner in favour of an
epistemological pluralism in which technology mediates a reconsideration of the kinds of
knowledge that are valued in education.
If the government strategy resembles Hawkridge’s (1990) social rationale, the pedagogic
rationale may find voice through communicative action, and the catalytic rationale in disrupt-
 JAMES BALLARD, PHILIP BUTLER

ive innovation. Communicative action in this context builds on Gramsci’s premise that im-
pulses for change do not arise from privilege but from underprivilege (Holub, 1992). For
Gramsci, intellectuals (teachers) interpret the voice of the underprivileged (learners) and
provide direction - as attainment gaps increase, so the learner voice may increasingly become
a platform for transformation with learners commanding communicative actions to pursue
projects commensurate with egalitarian principles. This may be particularly effective for
raising achievement when contextualised within local communities (Lupton, 2004). An al-
ternative and complementary model of change is ‘Disruptive Innovation’ (Bower &
Christensen, 1995). Christensen and Horn (2009a & 2009b) describes online learning as a
disruptive technology that may hold the potential to transform the current monolithic education
system to one based on individual student needs. While social change is often the by-product
of a disruptive innovation, catalytic innovations with social change as a primary objective
may also be pursued (Christensen, Baumann, Ruggles & Sadtler, 2006).

Conclusion
The framework does not proscribe particular infrastructure or systems and should complement
those that already do. Instead by positioning technology as a cultural tool the framework
hopes to address pedagogical inconsistencies of the national strategy as well as informing
the role technology might play in transformation. The framework is intended to be used to
inform the implementation, evaluation, and development of learning technologies and should
be adapted and reappraised as this evolves. Empirical studies may adopt the framework to
establish what does, or more importantly does not fit, within the model as well as perceived
usefulness across sectors with examples of effective assessment approaches reinforcing or
refining the model.
Despite the inherent contradictions of the national strategy this essay argues that person-
alised learning may yet provide a valid organising approach for e-learning. While e-learning
will remain complicated, fast-moving, important and something we cannot ‘solve’ (Conole
and Oliver, 2007), an important implication of mediated action is that the cultural tools
provide the context and standard for assessing the skills of the user (Werstch, 1998). Person-
alised learning may provide the context for evaluating the capabilities of e-learning systems,
supported by Vygotsky’s ZPD as the framework for assessing learner potential and develop-
ment.

References
Alexander, R. (2004). Still no pedagogy? principle, pragmatism and compliance in primary education.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(1), 7-33.
Allal, L., & Pelgrims Ducrey, G. (2000). Assessment of—or in—the zone of proximal development.
Learning and Instruction, 10(2), 137-152.
Barrett, H. C. (2010). Balancing the Two Faces of ePortfolios. Educação, Formação & Tecnologias,
3(1), 6-14. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from http://eft.educom.pt/index.php/eft/issue/view/11.
BECTA. (2008). Harnessing Technology: Next Generation Learning 2008–14. Retrieved 19/01/2011
from http://publications.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=37346.
BECTA. (2010). Harnessing Technology survey of technology use and adoption in FE colleges 2009-
10. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from http://research.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=rh&catcode=_
re_os_02&rid=17752.
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIETY

BECTA. (2010). Harnessing Technology School Survey: 2010. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from
http://research.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=rh&catcode=_re_os_02&rid=17829.
Black, P. (1998). Testing: Friend or Foe? London: Falmer Press.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment, 5(1).
Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave. Harvard
Business Review. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from http://hbr.org/1995/01/disruptive-
technologies/ar/1.
Brehony, K. (2005). Primary schooling under New Labour: The irresolvable contradiction of excellence
and enjoyment. Oxford Review of Education, 31(1), 29-46.
Bullock, K., & Jamieson, I. (1995). The Effect of Personal Development Planning on Attitudes, Beha-
viour and Understanding. Educational Studies, 21(3), 307-321.
Bullock, K., & Jamieson, I. (1998). The effectiveness of personal development planning. Curriculum
Journal, 9(1), 15..
Campbell, R. J., Robinson, W., Neelands, J., Hewston, R., & Mazzoli, L. (2007). Personalised
Learning: Ambiguities in Theory and Practice. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(2),
135-154.
Campione, J. C., Brown, A. L., Ferrara, R. A., & Bryant, N. R. (1984). The zone of proximal develop-
ment: Implications for individual differences and learning. New Directions for Child and
Adolescent Development, 1984(23), 77-91.
Carlson, J. S., & Wiedl, K. H. (1992). Principles of dynamic assessment: The application of a specific
model. Learning and Individual Differences, 4(2), 153-166.
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The Zone of Proximal Development in Vygotskyʼs Analysis of Learning and In-
struction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotskyʼs Educa-
tional Theory in Cultural Context (pp. 39-64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chi, M. T. H. (1996). Constructing Self-Explanations and Scaffolded Explanations in Tutoring. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 10(7), 33 - 49.
Christensen, C. M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., & Sadtler, T. M. (2006). Disruptive Innovation for
Social Change. Harvard Business Review, December. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from
http://hbr.org/2006/12/disruptive-innovation-for-social-change/ar/1.
Christensen, C. M., & Horn, M. (2009). A Solution to School District Budget Cuts. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/on-innovation/2009/06/a-solution-
to-school-district.html.
Christensen, C. M., & Horn, M. (2009). The Best Education Disruption of 2008? Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/on-innovation/2009/01/the-best-
education-disruption.html.
Conole, G., & Oliver, M. (2006). Contemporary Perspectives in E-learning Research: Themes,
Methods and Impact on Practice. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from
http://lib.myilibrary.com?ID=62818.
Deakin Crick, R. (2007). Learning how to learn: the dynamic assessment of learning power. Curriculum
Journal, 18(2), 135-153.
Deakin Crick, R., Broadfoot, P., & Claxton, G. (2004). Developing an Effective Lifelong Learning
Inventory: the ELLI Project. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(3),
247-272.
DfES. (2004a). Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from
http://publications.education.gov.uk/default.aspx?PageFunction=productdetails&Page
Mode=publications&ProductId=Cm+6272&.
DfES. (2004b). Every child matters: change for children. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from
http://publications.education.gov.uk/default.aspx?PageFunction=productdetails&Page
Mode=publications&ProductId=DfES/1081/2004.
 JAMES BALLARD, PHILIP BUTLER

DfES. (2005). Harnessing Technology. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/elearningstrategy.
DfES. (2006). 2020 Vision: Report of the Teaching and Learning in 2020 Review Group. Retrieved
19/01/2011 from http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/default.aspx?PageFunction=
productdetails&PageMode=publications&ProductId=DFES-04255-2006.
DfES. (2007). Pedagogy and Personalisation. Strategies. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from
http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/85123.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental re-
search. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from http://communication.
ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm.
Feuerstein, R. (1979). Dynamic Assessment of Retarded Performers: The Learning Potential, Assessment
Device, Theory, Instruments and Techniques. Scott Foresman & Co.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The New
Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies.
London: Sage Publications.
Gilmore, J. H., & Pine, B. J. (1997). Mass Customization. Harvard Business Review, January-Fe, 91-
101. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from http://hbr.org/1997/01/the-four-faces-of-mass-Customizati
on/ar/1.
Gindis, B. (2003). Remediation Through Education: Sociocultural Theory and Children with Special
Needs. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotskyʼs Educa-
tional Theory in Cultural Context (pp. 200-221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Green, H., Facer, K., Rudd, T., Dillon, P., & Humphreys, P. (2006). Personalisation and Digital
Technologies. Futurelab. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/research/
personalisation.htm.
Green, H., & Hannon, C. (2007). Their Space Education for a digital generation. Demos. Retrieved
19/01/2011 from http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/theirspace.
Habib, L., & Wittek, L. (2007). The Portfolio as Artifact and Actor. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(4),
266-282.
Hamilton, M. (2009). Putting words in their mouths: the alignment of identities with system goals
through the use of Individual Learning Plans. British Educational Research Journal, 35(2),
221-242.
Harris, A., & Ranson, S. (2005). The contradictions of education policy: disadvantage and achievement.
British Educational Research Journal, 31(5), 571-587.
Hartley, D. (2006). Excellence and Enjoyment: The Logic of a “Contradiction”. British Journal of
Educational Studies, 54(1), 3-14.
Hartley, D. (2007). Personalisation: the emerging “revised” code of education? Oxford Review of
Education, 33(5), 629-642.
Hartley, D. (2008). Education, Markets and the Pedagogy of Personalisation. British Journal of Edu-
cational Studies, 56(4), 365-381.
Hartley, D. (2009). Personalisation: the nostalgic revival of child-centred education? Journal of
Education Policy, 24(4), 423-434.
Hawkridge, D. (1990). Who needs computers in schools, and why? Computers & Education, 15(1-3),
1-6.
HEFCE. (2008). Review of the 2005 HEFCE Strategy for e-Learning. Strategy. Retrieved 19/01/2011
from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2008/rd20_08/.
Holub, R. (1992). Antonio Gramsci: Beyond Marxism and Postmodernism. London: Routledge.
Hutchings, W. (2007). Enquiry-Based Learning: Definitions and Rationale. Retrieved 27/02/2011
from http://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/ceebl/resources/papers/hutchings2007_de-
finingebl.pdf.
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIETY

Jackson, N. (2002). Guide to Curriculum Design: Personal Development Planning (pp. 1-8). Retrieved
19/01/2011 from http://www.palatine.ac.uk/resources/imagincurric/.
Jackson, N., & Ward, R. (2004). A fresh perspective on progress files--a way of representing complex
learning and achievement in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
29(4), 423-449.
Jaros, M. (2009). Pedagogy for knowledge recognition and acquisition: knowing and being at the close
of the mechanical age. Curriculum Journal, 20(3), 191-205.
Jaros, M., & Deakin-Crick, R. (2007). Personalized learning for the post-mechanical age. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 39(4), 423-440.
JISC. (2006). Effective Use of VLEs: Computer−Mediated Conferencing. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from
http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/InfoKits/effective-use-of-VLEs.
JISC. (2007a). Student Expectations Study (pp. 1-49). Retrieved 19/01/2011 from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/
publications/research/2007/studentexpectations.aspx.
JISC. (2007b). Effective Practice with e-Assessment. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/
whatwedo/programmes/elearningpedagogy/assessment.aspx.
JISC. (2008). Effective Practice with e-Portfolios. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/pub-
lications/programmerelated/2008/effectivepracticeeportfolios.aspx.
JISC. (2009). Effective Practice in a Digital Age. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/
publications/documents/effectivepracticedigitalage.aspx.
Karpov, Y. V. (2003). Vygotskyʼs Doctrine of Scientific Concepts: Its Role for Contemporary Education.
In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotskyʼs Educational
Theory in Cultural Context (pp. 65-82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Katz, I., & Assor, A. (2006). When Choice Motivates and When It Does Not. Educational Psychology
Review, 19(4), 429-442.
Kozulin, A. (1995). The Learning Process: Vygotskyʼs Theory in the Mirror of its Interpretations.
School Psychology International, 16(2), 117-129.
Kozulin, A. (2003). Psychological Tools and Mediated Learning. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S.
Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotskyʼs Educational Theory in Cultural Context (pp. 15-
38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V. S., & Miller, S. M. (2003). Vygotskyʼs Educational Theory in
Cultural Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching: a conversational framework for the effective
use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge/Falmer.
Leadbeater, C. (2004). Personalisation through participation: A new script for public services. Demos.
Retrieved 19/01/2011 from http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/personalisation.
Leadbeater, C. (2006). The Future of Public Services: Personalised Learning. In OECD/CERI (Eds.),
Personalising Education.
Lidz, C. S. (1987). Dynamic Assessment: An Interactional Approach to Evaluating Learning Potential.
(C. S. Lidz, Ed.) . New York: The Guilford Press.
Lidz, C. S. (1992). Dynamic assessment: Some thoughts on the model, the medium, and the message.
Learning and Individual Differences, 4(2), 125-136.
Lupton, R. (2004). Schools in Disadvantaged Areas: Recognising Context and Raising Quality. Retrieved
19/01/2011 from http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/case/_new/publications/abstract.asp?
index=2019.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
McLuhan, M., & Fiore, Q. (1967). The Medium is the Massage. (J. Agel, Ed.). London: Penguin Books.
Miliband, D. (2006). Choice and Voice in Personalised Learning. In OECD/CERI (Eds.), Personalising
Education. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from http://www.oecd.org/document/37/0,3746,en_
36702145_36702373_41175525_1_1_1_1, 00.html.
NCSL. (2005). Leading Personalised Learning in Schools. NCSL. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from
 JAMES BALLARD, PHILIP BUTLER

http://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/docinfo?id=17261&filename=leading-personalised-
learning-in-schools.pdf.
NUS. (2010). Student perspectives on technology – demand, perceptions and training needs. Learning.
Retrieved 19/01/2011 from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2010/rd18_10/.
Nystrand, M. (1996). Opening Dialogue: Understanding the Dynamics of Language and Learning in
the English Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Paludan, J. P. (2006). Personalised Learning 2025. In OECD/CERI (Eds.), Personalising Education.
Retrieved 19/01/2011 from http://www.oecd.org/document/58/0,3343,en_36702145_
36702373_41176570_1_1_1_1, 00.html.
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating Constructionism. In Papert & Harel Constructionism. Ablex
Publishing Corporation. Retrieved 27/02/2011 from http://www.papert.org/articles/Situating-
Constructionism.html.
Pine, J. B., Peppers, D., & Rogers, M. (1995). Do You Want to Keep Your Customers Forever. Harvard
Business Review, March-Apri, 103-114. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from http://hbr.org/1995/03/do-
you-want-to-keep-your-customers-forever/ar/1.
Poster, M. (1995). CyberDemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from
http://www.hnet.uci.edu/mposter/writings/democ.html.
Poster, M. (1995). Postmodern Virtualities. The Second Media Age. Blackwell. Retrieved 19/01/2011
from http://www.hnet.uci.edu/mposter/writings/internet.html.
Ravenscroft, A. (2001). Designing e-learning interactions in 21st Century: Revisiting and rethinking
the role of theory. European Journal of Education, 36(2), 133-156.
Ridgway, J., Mccusker, S., & Pead, D. (2004). Literature Review of E-assessment. Retrieved 27/02/2011
from http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles/literature-re-
views/Literature-Review204.
Rourke, A. J., & Coleman, K. S. (2010). A Learner Support System: Scaffolding to Enhance Digital
Learning. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 6(1).
Ryan, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., & Midgley, C. (2001). Avoiding Seeking Help in the Classroom: Who
and Why? Educational Psychology, 13(2), 93-114.
Stacey, R. D. (2002). Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics: The Challenge of Com-
plexity. London: Financial Times/ Prentice Hall.
Strivens, J. (2007). A survey of e-pdp and e-portfolio practice in UK Higher Education. Higher Edu-
cation. Retrieved 19/01/2011 from http://www.ied.edu.hk/obl/files/eportfolio practice in
UK.pdf.
Säljö, R. (1999). Learning as the use of tools: A socio-cultural perspective on the human-technology
link. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers: Analysing productive inter-
action (pp. 144-161). London: Routledge.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational
Researcher, 27(2), pp. 4-13.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning, and Schooling in
Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1991). The Instructional Conversation: Teaching and Learning in Social
Activity. UC Berkeley: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence. Retrieved
19/01/2011 from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5th0939d.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educa-
tional Research, 60(3), 249-76.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language. London and Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Models: Representation and the Scientific Understanding. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Reidel.
Wertsch, J. V. (1984). The zone of proximal development: Some conceptual issues. New Directions
for Child and Adolescent Development, 1984(23), 7-18.
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE AND SOCIETY

Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as Action. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yonegi Masuda. (1985). Computopia. In T. Forester (Ed.), The Information Technology Revolution
(pp. 620-34). Boston, MA: MIT Press.

About the Authors

James Ballard
James began working in e-learning at Barking College as part of the DfES ICT Test Bed
Project, producing reports assessing the impact of ICT in the classroom during the early
adoption phase of e-learning. He moved to University of London Computer Centre in 2007
where he has managed successful e-learning implementation projects with over 100 learning
providers and collaborated on the development of the personalised learning framework ad-
opted by many UK proivders. James has expertise of a vast experience of system integration
models and interoperability standards, and has worked on technology supported models for
early identification of at-risk learners, engagement tracking, and end-to-end assessment.
James frequently consults with colleagues nationwide, regularly presents at national and re-
gional conferences, and is currently studying at King’s College researching relationships
between technology, pedagogy and learning. Recent external work include projects within
JISC funded progammes for Transforming Curriculum Delivery Through Technology; JISC
CETIS Portfolio Interoperability Protoyping; and Becta’s E-portfolios for apprentices pub-
lication.

Philip Butler
Philip Butler has worked in the post-16 education sector as a teacher, manager and adviser
for 30 years. During his teaching career he developed a strong interest in Technology En-
hanced Learning and was appointed an adviser for the JISC Regional Support Centre for
London, becoming one of its founding members. He has provided colleges and HEIs a strong
lead in strategic thinking around e-Learning and organisational responses to transformation,
helping establish a strong reputation for London as a centre of high quality innovation and
practice. Philip was appointed as Senior e-Learning Adviser for the University of London
Computer Centre where he has assisted in developing it as the largest provider of e-Learning
services to the UK education sector, along with the reputation of a centre for excellence. His
most recent work has been in helping to design and develop the Personalisation of Learning
framework which has quickly established itself as the most important source technical devel-
opment in recent years. Philip has worked as a consultant on several national projects for
JISC, NIACE, BECTA, NLN, and the DTi and has presented to conferences and meetings
on a range of subjects to do with effective use of e-Learning in the UK, USA and India.
Editors
Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.
Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.

Editorial Advisory Board

Darin Barney, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Marcus Breen, Northeastern University, Boston, USA.
G.K. Chadha, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Dehli, India.
Simon Cooper, Monash University, Australia.
Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA, Common Ground.
Phillip Kalantzis-Cope, The New School for Social Research, New York, USA.
Bill Dutton, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Amareswar Galla, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; Pacific Asia
Observatory for Cultural Diversity in Human Development, Sydney, Australia.
David Hakken, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA.
Rom Harré, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., USA; London School of
Economics, London, UK.
Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Michele Knobel, Montclair State University, Montclair, USA.
Karim Gherab Martín, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.
Jeannette Shaffer, Edtech Leaders, Virginia, USA.
Ravi S. Sharma, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Robin Stanton, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Alfonso Unceta, Universidad del País Vasco, Bilbao, Spain.
Telle Whitney, Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology, Palo Alto, USA.

Please visit the Journal website at http://www.Technology-Journal.com

for further information about the Journal or to subscribe.
The Technology, Knowledge and Society Community
This knowledge community is brought together by a shared interest in the complex and
subtle relationships between technology, knowledge and society. The community
interacts through an innovative, annual face-to-face conference, as well as year-round
virtual relationships in a weblog, peer reviewed journal and book imprint – exploring the
affordances of the new digital media. Members of this knowledge community include
academics, technologists, consultants, educators and research students.

Conference
Members of Technology, Knowledge and Society Community meet at the International
Conference on Technology, Knowledge and Society, held annually in different locations
around the world. The inaugural Technology Conference was held at the University of
California, Berkeley, San Francisco in 2005. Since then, the Conference has been held
in Hyderabad, India in December 2005; a symposium on Technology and Democracy
was held at McGill University in Montreal, Canada in June 2006; in 2007 the Conference
was held at Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK; in 2008 at Northeastern University,
Boston, USA; in 2009 at Huntsville, Alabama, USA; in 2010 at the Free University
Berlin, Germany, and in 2011 at Universidad del País Vasco – Euskal Herriko
Unibertsitatea Bilbao, Spain. In 2012 the Conference will be held at University of
California, Los Angeles, USA.

Our community members and first time attendees come from all corners of the globe.
The Conference is a site of critical reflection, both by leaders in the field and emerging
scholars. Those unable to attend the Conference may opt for virtual participation in
which community members can either submit a video and/or slide presentation with
voice-over, or simply submit a paper for peer review and possible publication in
the Journal.

Online presentations can be viewed on YouTube.

Publishing
The Technology, Knowledge and Society Community also enables members of its
community to publish through three media. First, by participating in the Technology
Conference, members can enter a world of journal publication unlike the traditional
academic publishing forums – a result of the responsive, non-hierarchical and
constructive nature of the peer review process. The International Journal of Technology,
Knowledge and Society provides a framework for double-blind peer review, enabling
authors to publish into an academic journal of the highest standard.

The second publication medium is through the book series Technology and Society,
publishing cutting edge books in print and electronic formats. Publication proposals and
manuscript submissions are welcome.

The third major publishing medium is our news blog, constantly publishing short news
updates from the Technology, Knowledge and Society Community, as well as major
developments in the field. You can also join this conversation at Facebook and Twitter
or subscribe to our email Newsletter.
 Common Ground Publishing Journals

AGING ARTS
Aging and Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal The International Journal of the Arts in Society.
Website: http://AgingAndSociety.com/journal/ Website: www.Arts-Journal.com

BOOK CLIMATE CHANGE

The International Journal of the Book The International Journal of Climate Change:
Website: www.Book-Journal.com Impacts and Responses
Website: www.Climate-Journal.com

CONSTRUCTED ENVIRONMENT DESIGN

The International Journal of the Design Principles and Practices:
Constructed Environment An International Journal
Website: www.ConstructedEnvironment.com/journal Website: www.Design-Journal.com

DIVERSITY FOOD
The International Journal of Diversity in Food Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal
Organizations, Communities and Nations Website: http://Food-Studies.com/journal/
Website: www.Diversity-Journal.com

GLOBAL STUDIES HEALTH

The Global Studies Journal The International Journal of Health,
Website: www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com Wellness and Society
Website: www.HealthandSociety.com/journal

HUMANITIES IMAGE
The International Journal of the Humanities The International Journal of the Image
Website: www.Humanities-Journal.com Website: www.OntheImage.com/journal

LEARNING MANAGEMENT
The International Journal of Learning. The International Journal of Knowledge,
Website: www.Learning-Journal.com Culture and Change Management.
Website: www.Management-Journal.com

MUSEUM RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY

The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum The International Journal of Religion and
Website: www.Museum-Journal.com Spirituality in Society
Website: www.Religion-Journal.com

SCIENCE IN SOCIETY SOCIAL SCIENCES

The International Journal of Science in Society The International Journal of Interdisciplinary
Website: www.ScienceinSocietyJournal.com Social Sciences
Website: www.SocialSciences-Journal.com

SPACES AND FLOWS SPORT AND SOCIETY

Spaces and Flows: An International Journal of The International Journal of Sport and Society
Urban and ExtraUrban Studies Website: www.sportandsociety.com/journal
Website: www.SpacesJournal.com

SUSTAINABILITY TECHNOLOGY
The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, The International Journal of Technology,
Economic and Social Sustainability Knowledge and Society
Website: www.Sustainability-Journal.com Website: www.Technology-Journal.com

UBIQUITOUS LEARNING UNIVERSITIES

Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal Journal of the World Universities Forum
Website: www.ubi-learn.com/journal/ Website: www.Universities-Journal.com

For subscription information please contact

subscriptions@commongroundpublishing.com