Last Thursday we talked with Juan Domingo Farns on various topics of educational interest, including inclusive education, ubiquity, LMS, and personal learning environments. Juan Domingo is a researcher at Educational Technologies, e-learning, 2.0, 3.0, Artificial Intelligence, virtual and augmented worlds.
In principle, Farns mentions that inclusive education generally works with students with special educational needs, with what South Americans call gaps, however he notes that inclusive education goes much further, since it seeks the personalized learning for each student, but getting the best out of him, that is, he seeks the excellence of the student, for this the elearning and web 2.0 are going very well because they help motivate them, to learn better and above all discard a little the teaching-learning issue …
The issue of teaching is already distorted, surpassed by inclusive education.
The educational systems, for Farns, are closed, they are prescriptive and obligatory, reason why it is difficult to move between their waters; Contrary to this, inclusive elearning is based on learning the other way around than normal, that is, part of an informal learning to later reach the formal ones; On the other hand, in educational systems there are only formal aspects.
Later, Juan Domingo Farns refers to ubiquitous learning:
[…] It can be learned anywhere, but also by valuing it, that is, if I learn outside the center, that what I learn has as much value as what is curricular, as what is within the center, and not only that, but also It has more value than the curriculum because it is learning that attends to what each student wants to learn.
As part of the discussion, Leonardo Montenegro raises the following reflection and question:
The use of the LMS is normally governed by an institutional control through which it is intended to gather resources and courses for the educational action of the learners who are part of a specific educational community. For its part, the use of the PLE implies gathering in a systematic way the tools and resources that we find on the Internet, only that it is intended that this work be carried out by the user-learners. At the same time, while it is insisted that PLEs are not the evolution of LMS, some educators and educational technologists are suggesting that some features of Web 2.0 should be incorporated into LMS, and they seem unaware that LMS are based on institutional needs. How can we resolve these contradictions?
In this regard, Farns points out that the LMS are completely closed and depend on a university or a company, and they establish the operating guidelines. Regarding personal learning environments, he expresses that
[…] if the PLE refers to oneself, then it is of no use … if it is made up of a series of things that I cannot transmit to others, it is of no use. It is a PLE if I can transmit them to others and they can learn, they can gain knowledge.
Here is the full discussion: