Journal of Literacy and Technology
Special Edition: Personal Learning Environments: Current
Research and Emerging Practice
Contents
Editorial for the Special Issue on Personal Learning Environments ......................................... 2
Learner Control in Personal Learning Environments: A Cross-Cultural Study ....................... 14
A Pedagogy-driven Framework for Integrating Web 2.0 tools into Educational Practices and
Building Personal Learning Environments .............................................................................. 54
The Problem of Learner Control in Networked Personal Learning Environments ................. 80
A Concept to Bridge Personal Learning Environments: Including a Generic Bookmarking
Tool into a Social Learning Management Systems ................................................................ 111
Interaction and Reflection with Quantified Self and Gamification: an Experimental Study. 136
The Mobile as an ad hoc PLE: Learning Serendipitously in Urban Contexts ....................... 157
An Exploratory Study of the Personal Learning Environments of Security and Investigation
Professionals .......................................................................................................................... 171
Connected Older Adults: Conceptualising their Digital Participation ................................... 200
Innovation, Knowledge and Sustainability with PLEs: an Empirical Analysis from SAPO
Campus Schools Pilots ........................................................................................................... 215
Analysis of the Future Professionals' PLEs as Lifelong Learning Basic Skill: Presenting the
CAPPLE Project .................................................................................................................... 247
Journal of Literacy and Technology
2
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Editorial for the Special Issue on Personal Learning Environments
Guest editor:
Ilona Buchem, Beuth University of Applied Science Berlin, Germany
buchem@beuth-hochschule.de
Introduction
Personal Learning Environment (PLE) is an approach in Technology-Enhanced
Learning (TEL) based on the principles of learner autonomy, ownership and empowerment.
PLEs are integrated, individual environments for learning which include specific
technologies, methods, tools, contents, communities and services constituting complex
learning infrastructures enhancing new educational practices and at the same time emerging
from these new practices. This represents a shift away from the traditional model of
technology-enhanced learning based on
knowledge transfer towards a model based on
knowledge construction. In PLEs learning happens by drawing connections from a growing
and diverse pool of online and offline resources to plan, organise, create, network, engage
and reflect in permeable spaces.
The articles presented in this Special Issue are selected best research papers submitted
for The Personal Learning Environment Conference 2013, which took place at Beuth
University of Applied Sciences in Berlin, Germany together with a parallel event at Monash
University in Melbourne, Australia. The PLE Conference - http://pleconf.org - is an
international, scientific event which intends to create a space for researchers and practitioners
in which exchange ideas, case studies and research related to the design, development and
implementation of Personal Learning Environments (PLEs). The PLE Conference takes place
annually, each time in a different city. The first event was held in Barcelona, Spain in 2010,
Journal of Literacy and Technology
3
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
the second one in Southampton, UK in 2011, the third one in Aveiro, Portugal in 2012
together with a parallel event and Melbourne, Australia, the fourth one in Berlin and
Melbourne and the fifth in 2014 in Tallinn, Estonia, and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Articles in this Special Issue
The Special Issue includes ten selected articles presenting current research on
Personal Learning Environments. All ten articles provide unique perspectives and insights
into Personal Learning Environments. The different focal points of the ten articles represent
the diversity of gateways used to approach the concept of Personal Learning Environments
in specific contexts, including education, work and leisure.
��Learner Control in Personal Learning Environments: A Cross-Cultural
Study�� (pp. 14 - 53), by
Ilona Buchem, Gemma Tur Ferrer and
Tobias Hölterhof,
describes the results of an international, cross-cultural study exploring the role of ownership
and control in Personal Learning Environments and possible differences in perception of
control and ownership by higher education students from different national and academic
cultures. The study, rooted in the theory of psychological ownership, was conducted in 2013
at three different universities in Germany and Spain. The study is based on the assumption
that a
learning environment becomes a Personal Learning Environment when the learner
feels the owner and in control of this environment. The article explores ownership and
control in context of ePortfolio practice and provides a contribution to the investigation of
the impact of PLE practice on learning. The results of the study indicate that differences in
perception of ownership and control may be attributed both to cultural factors and
instructional designs. An interesting result of the study is a disjunction between instructional
designs aimed at activating students by means of compulsory assignments and students'
perception of their learning environments as Personal Learning Environments. The results
Journal of Literacy and Technology
4
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
of the study indicate that freedom of choice (e.g. objectives, tools), flexibility (e.g.
planning) and transparency (e.g. personal data) may positively contribute to the perception
of a learning environment as a Personal Learning Environments and may be beneficial to
the overall learning effect, including interest-orientation, engagement and creativity. The
authors argue that promoting ownership and learner control of the entire learning
environment, including its components and processes, should be considered the key element
of PLE design and PLE practice.
��A pedagogy-driven framework for integrating Web 2.0 tools into educational
practices and building personal learning environments�� (pp. 54 - 79), by
Ebrahim
Rahimi, Jan van den Berg and
Wim Veen, proposes a conceptual framework for designing
Web 2.0 based PLE activities. The authors adopt a constructivist approach to developing
and deploying PLEs and pledge for enhancing
student control to support personal
development and learning by building Personal Learning Environments. The emphasis is on
facilitating student control through student-centric instructional approaches. The framework
consists of four main elements, i.e. student control model, learning potential of Web 2.0
tools and services, project-based teaching approach, and technology-enhanced learning
activities. The framework defines how to design PLE activities by considering the
interaction of the three elements - Web 2.0 technologies, student control and teaching
practices. The framework aims at providing teachers with opportunities to acquire a deeper
understanding and knowledge about students' learning processes as means to improving and
enriching own educational practices. The article argues that student control may be best
promoted by defining and granting active roles to students in technology-enhanced learning
environments as these roles are necessary for developing competencies needed to deal with
the challenges of the knowledge society.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
5
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
��The problem of Learner Control in Networked Personal Learning
Environments�� (pp. 80-111), by
Paul Bouchard, investigates the notions of
learner
agency and learner control in view of networked learning. The article argues for a need for
further research that takes into account the key features of Personal Learning Environments,
namely learner control, self-directed learning and the distribution of power in networked-
based communication systems. The article emphasises that the very option to initiate and
pursue learning is the first area of learner control and it precedes other stages of knowledge
building. The author points out that this
conative dimension of learner control is contingent
on psychological and contextual variables such as readiness and incentive. The learning
process is considered to be a result of many decisions and choices. Hence, the second area
of learner-control is defined as the ability to influence the procedures of the learning process
itself. The article argues that in complex networked learning environments, learners must be
able to devise ways to reduce own vulnerability as learners and to build the capacity for
creative interactions that are necessary for structuring a new understanding of the world.
The article provides interesting points of reference for the conceptualisation of a research
framework on networked Personal Learning Environments.
��A concept to bridge Personal Learning Environments: Including a generic
bookmarking tool into a social Learning Management Systems�� (pp. 111 - 135), by
Tobias Hoelterhof and
Richard Heinen, investigates the ability to connect learners'
Personal Learning Environments by a central, permeable Social Learning Management
System (SLMS). The relevance of this conceptual idea is explored within the context of
higher education based on the example of social bookmarking tools as elements of PLEs.
The concept of
bridging PLEs is based upon the metaphoric idea of bridges in social
network analyses. It refers to interface bridging between bookmarking tools as an element
Journal of Literacy and Technology
6
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
of the learners' PLE and the institutional SLMS realised as a ��social hub��. The article
reports on use cases and survey results on the uses of the bookmarking tool ��Edutags�� as a
component of the Social Learning Management System ��Online Campus Next Generation��
based on Drupal. Connecting multiple tools from different environments is discussed in
view of a non-dominant and inconsistent design of an LMS. The article argues for the
design of Learning Management Systems as permeable, social systems including the need of
rich metadata enabling personalisation. The article further discusses theoretical questions
concerning the relation between personal and social, institutional and private, as well as
consistent and heterogeneous elements of Personal Learning Environments.
��Interaction and Reflection with Quantified Self and Gamification: an
Experimental Study�� (pp. 136– 157) by
Benedikt S. Morschheuser, Ver��nica Rivera-
Pelayo, Athanasios Mazarakis and
Valentin Zacharias, reports on the research conducted
to explore the impact of gamification on enhancing motivation of students to use Personal
Learning Environments in context of higher education. The research presented was an
experiment with the Live-Interest-Meter (LIM), a Quantified Self (QS) application which
allows capturing, sharing and visualizing several types of feedback with the aim of
improving the learning experience during and after lectures. The results of the experiment
indicate that perceived fun induced by gamification design may have positive effects on the
motivation to use services such as LIM which may be used by students as elements of their
Personal Learning Environments. Based on these results the authors argue that gamification
may be an appropriate enabler to engaging learners in using quantified self-approaches as
parts of their PLEs for improving their learning experiences.
��The mobile as an ad hoc PLE: Learning serendipitously in urban contexts�� by
Ruthi Aladjem and
Rafi Nachmias (pp. 157 - 170) reflects on
the potential of mobile
Journal of Literacy and Technology
7
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
devices used in urban contexts for constructing ad hoc PLEs through consolidating discrete
learning events into coherent learning experiences. The starting point is the consideration of
the city or urban space as an exploration ground with endless learning opportunities, related
to such aspects as local language, history, architecture, art and culture. The authors define
PLEs as an approach to the use of technologies including all the different tools used in
everyday life for learning. The article reports on the results from a pilot study of informal
serendipitous learning events in urban settings mediated by mobile technologies, including
location-based applications such as Google Maps, TripAdvisor, Foursquare and Facebook.
The research questions focus on the ways in which mobile tools and applications are being
used in order to construct knowledge in urban settings. Based on the analysis of learning
interactions three specific issues are addressed in the paper. These are
availability (e.g.
information, connectivity),
social interaction (e.g. social support, sharing opportunities) and
awareness (e.g. affecting others). The authors argue that these three aspects, i.e. availability,
social interaction and awareness, support the construction of ad hoc PLEs by selecting and
utilizing dynamic components based upon contextual needs and preferences. The article
concludes that mobile devices may encourage learners to explore and utilize opportunities
for learning in the city, by fostering serendipitous learning in ad hoc PLEs.
��An exploratory study of the personal learning environments of security and
investigation professionals�� by
Antony E. Ratcliffe (pp. 171 - 199) describes and
discusses how security management and investigation professionals use Personal Learning
Environments for work-related learning and continuing professional development. The
article is based on an exploratory study with 67 security management and investigation
professionals in 17 countries. The results of the study indicate that although these
professionals participate in online discussions, access networks and resources, their
Journal of Literacy and Technology
8
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
collaborative activities in online spaces remain limited for reasons of security, privacy,
authenticity of information and employer restriction concerns. The author points out that
collaboration in work-based contexts tends to takes place in private settings with the more
traditional technologies of telephone and e-mail. An interesting result from the study is that
security professionals express reluctance and caution when sharing in online spaces, taking
on a rather
consumer-oriented approach, acting as consumers rather than creators of
information. It seems that Personal Learning Environments constructed by these
professionals (any maybe others as well) lack some of the key characteristics of
participatory environments. The author argues that the observed consumer-orientation might
be to a certain extend attributed to many security professionals being in the early stage of
legitimate peripheral participation, which may lead to greater participation as knowledge
and comfort in the use of new tools and practices increase. The article concludes with a
recommendation for enhanced digital literacy practices and case studies of successful
collaborative efforts as a means to encourage other professionals to participate in knowledge
sharing as part of their PLEs, connecting PLEs with careers and professional activities.
��Connected Older Adults: Conceptualising their Digital Participation�� by
Linda De George-Walker and
Mark A. Tyler titled (pp. 200 - 214) explores the
experience of the digital divide among older adults, including such issues as digital anxiety,
and proposes a model for conceptualising older adults�� digital participation. The proposed
model integrates self-efficacy theory, digital competence and the Personal Learning
Environments approach. The aim of the model is to signpost paths towards enhanced digital
participation of older adults based on developing
digital self-efficacy. The authors
emphasise the potential of digital technologies for improving opportunities for older adults
to socialise, access services and learning, thus improving the quality of life, especially in
Journal of Literacy and Technology
9
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
relation to health and wellbeing. The authors define PLEs as
��fluid and relational learning
contexts in which individuals are both autonomous and interconnected��, and argue that
PLEs offer an opportunity to a more comprehensive conceptualisation of individual and
social aspects of digital self-efficacy and digital participation of older adults. The article
concludes with some relevant points on current and future research in this area, focusing on
examining how digital self-efficacy of older adults (both users and non-users) may be
improved by engaging in PLE practice. This includes, among others, an investigation of
mastery experiences related to previous success with digital technologies.
��Innovation, Knowledge and Sustainability with PLEs: An empirical analysis
from SAPO Campus school pilots�� by
Carlos Santos, Luis Pedro and
Fatima Pais (pp.
215 - 264) reports on the SAPO Campus Schools project developed by the University of
Aveiro and SAPO. The project aims at
promoting disruptive innovation in schools by
encouraging openness, collaboration, content production and sharing. The focus is on an
empirical study of use cases of SAPO Campus Schools (SCS) platform, a Web 2.0 platform
designed for schools (K1 through K12). The design of this platform combines the principle
of personalisation, aimed at enabling users to construct their own PLEs, and the principle of
institutionalization, aimed at enhancing the commitment of schools to promote the formal
and institutional adoption of SCS. The authors argue that combination of these two
principles -
institutionalization and personalization – may help provide learner with the
possibility of building and customizing their own PLEs, while at the same time extending
the range of learning activities in schools. The article analyses preliminary data gathered
from a group of pilot schools that have institutionally adopted SCS. The study builds on the
theory of knowledge creation as a process of promoting innovation. The use cases described
in the article reveal that platforms such as SCS can act as
catalysts for change by promoting
Journal of Literacy and Technology
10
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
new practices in educational institutions, such as engaging in open discussions, building
learning networks or creating content.
��Analysis of The Future Professionals' PLEs as Lifelong Learning Basic Skill:
Presenting the CAPPLE Project�� by
Paz Prendesand
Linda Castañeda (pp. 216 - 248),
provides an insight into the CAPPLE Project, a research project focused on the exploration
and understanding of Personal Learning Environments by future Spanish professionals. This
multidisciplinary project focuses on modelling PLEs and creating a tool for analyzing and
diagramming PLEs as the next step in PLE research. The research question addressed in this
article is related to strategies that students use to organize their PLEs, including strategies
induced by formal learning. The description and analysis of the current PLEs of future
professionals aims at exploring the contribution of transversal learning to PLE practice with
the view of improving the processes of creation, management and enrichment of PLEs. The
authors emphasise the need for further discussion on institutional contributions to PLEs
both in context of vocational training and formal education.
Conclusion and Outlook
The ten articles included in this Special Issue provide rich and valuable theoretical and
empirical insights into Personal Learning Environments. The meta-analysis of the selected
ten articles reveals three main issues related to Personal Learning Environments. These issues
can be described with the following three keywords: PLE control, PLE diversity and PLE
contexts. All three issues are explained in more detail below.
•
PLE control: The first key issue arising from the papers in this Special Issue is the
importance of learner control and a need for a new conceptual framing of learner
control and ownership in relation to Personal Learning Environments. The first
three articles explicitly address both issues. Both learner control and ownership in
Journal of Literacy and Technology
11
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
PLEs gain a new dimension when compared to earlier approaches to technology-
enhanced learning. Learner control is no longer only about manipulation and
customization of pre-defined options but encompasses a range of autonomous
decisions starting with the intention and decision to use technologies to learn,
through a free choice of services and tools, to the ultimate decision of abandoning
or even destroying an own PLE. Also the issue of ownership, especially
psychological ownership as described in ��Learner Control in Personal Learning
Environments: A Cross-Cultural Study,�� become crucial when it comes to taking
responsibility for learning as well as for a genuine and sustainable engagement in
PLE practice. Framing both aspects - control and ownership – seems necessary to
guide further PLE design and practice targeted towards the enhancement of
autonomy and freedom of choice, especially in formal settings, including schools
(e.g. ��Innovation, Knowledge and Sustainability with PLEs: An empirical analysis
from SAPO Campus school pilots��), higher education (e.g. ��Learner Control in
Personal Learning Environments: A Cross-Cultural Study��) and vocational training
(e.g. ��Analysis of The Future Professionals' PLEs as Lifelong Learning Basic Skill:
Presenting The CAPPLE Project��). Furthermore, contributions to this special issue
indicate that both control and ownership of the learning environment are the key
defining characteristics of Personal Learning Environments, revealing what
��personal�� in PLE may really mean.
•
PLE diversity: The second issue emerging from the meta-analysis is the diversity
of PLE users and the diversity of PLE forms. ��Learner Control in Personal
Learning Environments: A Cross-Cultural Study�� points towards cultural
differences when it comes to PLE practice. These differences may be related both
Journal of Literacy and Technology
12
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
to national and discipline cultures. ��An exploratory study of the personal learning
environments of security and investigation professionals�� and ��Connected Older
Adults: Conceptualising their Digital Participation�� address further dimensions of
diversity of PLE users, i.e. age and occupation. While ��Connected Older Adults:
Conceptualising their Digital Participation�� reveals some possible barriers of PLE
adoption by older adult learners, such as digital anxiety and lack of digital self-
efficacy, ��An exploratory study of the personal learning environments of security
and investigation professionals�� points to some important concerns of
professionals engaging in PLE practice in work-based settings, including security,
privacy, authenticity of information and employer restrictions, possibly preventing
more open and participatory forms of PLE practice. In the current stage of PLE
research the diversity of PLE users has not yet been systematically explored and
may become an important area of further research, design and development of
Personal Learning Environments. Another dimension of PLE diversity are the
diverse PLE forms, including ePortfolio-oriented PLEs (��Learner Control in
Personal Learning Environments: A Cross-Cultural Study��), bridging PLEs with
instituational platforms such as Social Learning Management Systems (��A concept
to bridge Personal Learning Environments: Including a generic bookmarking tool
into a social Learning Management Systems��), gamified PLEs (��Interaction and
Reflection with Quantified Self and Gamification: an Experimental Study��), ad-
hoc PLEs mediated by mobile technologies (��The mobile as an ad hoc PLE:
Learning serendipitously in urban contexts��) or Web 2.0 based PLEs such as
SAPO Campus Schools (��Innovation, Knowledge and Sustainability with PLEs:
An empirical analysis from SAPO Campus school pilots��). This diversity shows
Journal of Literacy and Technology
13
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
yet again that there no single PLE design and that new designs are emerging
together with the rise of new media (e.g. mobile media) and new approaches (e.g.
gamification).
•
PLE context: The papers in this issue describe PLE research and practice in
various contexts. While higher education context is still dominating, new contexts
for PLEs are emerging, for example professional and work-based learning (��An
exploratory study of the personal learning environments of security and
investigation professionals��), vocational training (��Analysis of The Future
Professionals' PLEs as Lifelong Learning Basic Skill: Presenting The CAPPLE
Project��), schools (��Innovation, Knowledge and Sustainability with PLEs: An
empirical analysis from SAPO Campus school pilots��), informal learning
(��Connected Older Adults: Conceptualising their Digital Participation��) or even
city as an urban learning context (��The mobile as an ad hoc PLE: Learning
serendipitously in urban contexts��). The descriptions of PLE research and practice
in these different contexts show that different PLE approaches may be emerging
naturally and/or are necessary in terms of design and development depending on
the characteristics of the context. Context-sensitive R&D may be another important
direction for PLE research. In the future it will become crucial to develop a better
understanding of the contextual requirements and facets of PLEs.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
14
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Learner Control in Personal Learning Environments: A Cross-
Cultural Study
Ilona Buchem, Ph.D.
Professor in Residence for Digital Media and Diversity
Beuth University of Applied Sciences Berlin
E-mail: buchem@beuth-hochschule.de
Gemma Tur, Ph.D.
School of Education Coordinator
Associate Lecturer in Early Childhood Education
Primary Education and the Master��s Degree in Teacher Training. Educational Technology
Group (GTE).
Department of Applied Pedagogy and Educational Psychology
University of the Balearic Islands
E-mail: gemma.tur@uib.es
Tobias Hölterhof, Ph.D.
Scientific Assistant with the Chair of Media Didactics and Knowledge Management –
Learning Lab,
University of Duisburg
E-mail: tobias.hoelterhof@uni-duisburg-essen.de
Journal of Literacy and Technology
15
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Abstract
Changing power relations and the shift in control have been some of the key issues
driving the discussion in Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) in the last years. As opposed
to deterministic approaches to designing learning, such as the system approach in
instructional design, emancipatory approaches, such as Personal Learning Environments
(PLE), emphasizes the
shift of control and ownership from the educator or the designer to the
learner, bestowing decision making and choice upon the learner, not only in terms of
choosing the content or the sequence of learning steps, but first and foremost the choice of
the learning tools and the use of these tools to support one��s own learning, including co-
creation of learning content and fostering of Personal Learning Networks (PLN). In this paper
we describe the results of an international, cross-cultural study exploring the role of
ownership and control in Personal Learning Environments. Our study is rooted in the theory
of psychological ownership and utilizes research instruments developed in the predecessor
study by Buchem (2012). The study was conducted in winter and spring 2013 at three
different universities in Germany and Spain including students from six different courses, i.e.
three courses in media sociology in Germany, two online master programs in educational
media and educational leadership in Germany and a teacher education program in Spain. An
online survey was used to collect data in two languages - German and Catalan. Following the
concept of ownership proposed by Buchem (2012), the study is based on the assumption that
a learning environment becomes a Personal Learning Environment when the learner
(subjectively) feels the owner this environment and perceives herself/himself to able to
exercise control over this environment. The study presented in this paper aims at advancing
our understanding of the role of psychological ownership in contect of PLE, especially in
relation to
learner control. This paper specifically explores ownership and control in context
Journal of Literacy and Technology
16
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
of ePortfolio practice. Finally, this article provides a contribution to methods of measuring
the impact of PLEs.
Introduction
Personal Learning Environments (PLE) is an approach to using technology for
learning, focusing on self-directed and self-regulated uses of tools and resources by the
learner (Buchem, Attwell and Torres, 2011). It is capturing the
personal activity, or how
the learner uses technology to support own learning, rather than developing
personalised platforms, that lies at the heart of the PLE research. The first survey about
the role of ownership and control in context of Personal Learning Environments was
conducted in 2012 at two universities in Germany (Buchem, 2012). This study was
rooted in the theory of psychological ownership by Pierce, Kostova and Dirks (2001,
2003) and reported on empirical findings from an online survey and analysis of
educational practice, exploring multiple relationships between ownership, control and
learning in context of technology-enhanced learning environments created in the
process of creating ePortfolios. The results of the study indicated that control of
intangible elements of a learning environment, such as control of content or personal
data, is more strongly related to the feeling of ownership of this learning environment
than is the control of
tangible elements, such as technical tools (e.g. Web 2.0 services).
The underlying assumption was that not every learning environment - not matter how
personalized - automatically becomes a PLE, but that it is the perception of the
individual learner that makes a learning environment to a PLE. Further, the hypothesis
is that this perception depends on whether the learner develops a feeling of ownership
and control of the learning environment. More specifically, it was argued that the
perception of a learning environment as a PLE is related to the feeling of ownership of
Journal of Literacy and Technology
17
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
intangible elements rather than tangible ones (Buchem, 2012. The results of the study
indicated that learners perceive a learning environment as a PLE even if they do not
have the full control of all elements of this environment and do not in fact own them.
For example, Web 2.0 services do not belong to the learner in terms of legal or
intellectual proprietorship, and yet learners may feel in control when using them. The
follow-up research presented in this paper further explores the role of psychological
ownership and learner control in PLEs from a cross-cultural perspective.
Theoretical Background
Learner control has been one of the key research interests in the field of
technology-enhanced learning. In the early years, learner control was analyzed mainly
within technology-enhanced instructional delivery systems, such as computer-assisted
learning programs including intelligent tutoring systems. Recently, the socio-
constructivist paradigm in technology-enhanced learning and the emergence of
Personal Learning Environments have introduced new lines of research in the area of
learner control.
Research on learner control in 1980s and 1990s was to a wide extend embedded
in the instructional design paradigm. This prescriptive approach to learner control
focused on control as a choice of a pre-defined set of elements, including learning paths
(e.g. lesson branching) and learning materials (e.g. examples and exercises) in
computer-supported settings. Later, in web-based settings, new types of learner control
have been explored, including informational control enabled by hypertext and
hypermedia systems (Wilson and Jonassen, 10989; Lin and Hsieh, 2001). Within the
instructional design framework learner control has been pre-programmed by the
Journal of Literacy and Technology
18
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
designer and conceptualized as choices provided within computer-delivered instruction,
for example in form of
control of sequence (i.e. control of sequencing of topics or
exercises),
control of level, (i.e. control of the difficulty level or degree of difficulty
within a learning sequence),
control of pacing (i.e. control of speed of presentation of
learning content),
control of display (i.e. control of viewing materials from a selection
including examples, exercises or quizzes),
control of support (i.e. control of using
system advice such as recommendation on learning materials) (cf. Merrill, 1983;
Laurillard , 1987; Milheim and Martin, 1991; Chung and Reigeluth, 1992). A number of
authors including Buchem, Attwell and Torres (2011) have argued that this type of
conceptualization of learner control allows for system adaptivity and individual
customization but not for a genuine co-/design of a learning environment by the learner.
More recently research on learner control in context of PLE has moved beyond
computer assisted programs, intelligent tutoring systems and learning management
systems towards authentic learning contexts mediated by technology in which the
learner may have a greater control of either tangible or intangible elements of a learning
environment (Buchem, 2012). Buchem, Attwell and Torres (2011) carried out an
extensive literature review on Personal Learning Environments and showed that learner
control in context of PLEs has been conceptualised broader in relation to different
dimensions of learner activity. Based on the activity theory framework (extended
triangle) these authors analysed learner control in PLEs in five dimensions: objectives,
tools, rules, community and tasks.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
19
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
The results of the grounded theory analysis pointed towards a multi-dimensional
notion of learner control in PLEs, which goes beyond the previous conceptualizations
of learner control in terms of scope (Table 1).
Table 1. Dimensions of learner control in PLEs (Buchem, Attwell and Torres (2011, p.
10-11).
Dimensions of learner
control
Examples of learner activities
A. Control of objectives
The learner (subject) can:
• Determine learning goals and outcomes
• Manage data, services, resources, content
• Use scaffolding and guidance
B. Control of tools
The learner (subject) can:
• Select and use tools according to own needs
• Reuse and remix content
• Aggregate and configure tools based on own
preferences
C. Control of rules
The subject can:
• Configure the environment according to own
preferences
• Negotiate rules of communication and collaboration
with teachers, peers, communities
• Negotiate intellectual property rights
D. Control of social base
The learner (subject) can:
• Choose with whom to communicate
• Choose who can communicate with him/her
• Initiate discussions and collaborations
E. Control of tasks
The learner (subject) can:
• Specify own needs (e.g. user profile)
• Self-monitor own progress
• Adjust performance based on (peer) feedback
Journal of Literacy and Technology
20
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
The examples of learner control in Table 1 indicate that the concept of learner control in
PLEs envisages learner control far beyond skipping forwards and backwards as part of
a pre-programmed sequencing strategy or choosing between viewing examples or
consulting a glossary as part of a display strategy. The notion of learner control in the
PLE approach goes as far as allowing learners to determine their own learning goals,
selecting and aggregating a wide range of available (not necessarily pre-selected) tools,
negotiating rules, initiating (and not only engaging in) discussions and collaborations
and adjusting learning based on self-monitoring the learning progress (versus
automated recommendations). In comparison to earlier instructional principles of
learner control, the PLE approach resembles more of an activity of ��building a house��
rather than ��furnishing a house��. Thus, while instructional design approaches have
focused on
micro-level strategies of learner control within a pre-determined system
(manipulation of small instructional elements), the PLE approach has focused on
meta-
level strategies of learner control within an open system (management of the entire
learning process) with learner control being inherent to the construction of PLEs.
Learner control is related to the concept of ownership, and both concepts are
related to the notion of ��agency�� in terms of the human capacity to make choices and to
impose those choices on the world (Buchem, Attwell and Torres, 2011). Ownership has
been considered as a critical issue for learning. Allowing learners to own their learning
process means to allow learners to engage with the process itself, which is a crucial
factor for the effectiveness of the learning process (Biggs and Tang, 2011). In context of
technology-enhanced learning, a number of approaches consider ownership as a crucial
concept for learning. For example, the ��folio thinking�� approach to ePortfolio practice
has emphasised the role of ownership of ePortfolio for ensuring the use of ePortfolio as
Journal of Literacy and Technology
21
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
a basic learning strategy, integrated into all educational activities and sustainable in the
lifetime (Cousin, 2006; Joyes, Gray and Harnell Young, 2009; Chen, 2009; Chen &
Light, 2010; Shepherd and Skarbut, 2011). In this research context, the relationship
between control, motivation and ownership have been considered to be mutually
supportive. For example, the study by Shroff, Trent and Ng (2013) rooted in the Milner-
Bolotin's (2001) framework of ownership, showed that students and teachers considered
the feeling of control as vital for the ownership of ePortfolio. As Barrett and Wilkerson
(2004) argue, the greater the control of students over their ePortfolio, the more intrinsic
motivation towards learning they develop.
Figure 1. Learner ownership and control of ePortfolio (Barrett & Wilkerson, 2004)
Journal of Literacy and Technology
22
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
However, the varying forms and degrees ownership have been seldom differentiated
both in literature related to PLEs and ePortfolios as well as in publications addressing
the ownership of learning in general. Also there has been little clarity about what type
of ownership and control (e.g. technical, legal, psychological, social) and over what
elements (e.g. goals, information, services) may be effective for learning. As Buchem,
Attwell and Torres (2011) point out, it is possible to conceive of ownership of learning
from various perspectives, e.g. in a
technical sense (e.g. the learner is technically
responsible for aggregating and configuring services),
legal sense (e.g. the data and
content legally belongs to the learner) or
psychological sense (e.g. the learner feels an
owner of the learning environment). As the study by Buchem (2012) indicated, it is also
possible that the learner can ��control�� the environment (e.g. select sources of
information, reuse and remix content) without actually ��owning�� all its constituting
parts. In context of ePortfolios, Attwell (2005, 2007) highlighted some important issues
related to ownership by distinguishing different agents owing different ePortfolio
processes (Attwell, 2012). Attwell focused on the ownership of different processes
related to learning and pointed out that in educational settings different ePortfolio
processes are owned by different agents. For example, reflecting is ��owned�� by the
learner (the learner controls this process), assessment is ��owned�� both by the learner
and external agents whilst accreditation is ��owned�� only by external agents, such as
educational institutions.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
23
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Figure 2. ePortfolio processes ownership (Attwell, 2005, 2007, 2012)
However, ownership in context of PLE comprises both processes and elements of learning,
such as digital tools used to construct a PLE. Nowadays, the nature of the relationships
brought about by social networks, as well as the shift of the external world's learning agents,
has highlighted the importance of the control of intangible elements of learning including
personal data in order to improve the sense of ownership (cf. Attwell, 2012). This is the
central point of interest explored by Buchem (2012) and in this paper.
To explore the relation between ownership and control one can refer to
philosophical investigations about ownership in general and self-ownership in
particular (e.g. Dan-Cohen, 1992; Brown, 1993). For example, the concept of self-
ownership, which is related to the individual autonomy (Pateman, 2002), can be defined
as a psychological condition of a person (disposition), which is expressed in actions and
in the general attitude towards oneself and the world (Dworkin, 1988). Personal
Journal of Literacy and Technology
24
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
��autonomy�� in the sense of self-governance or self-rule (��autos�� meaning self and
��nomos�� meaning rule), involves choosing, defining, being able to make preferences
and take decisions (Dworkin, 1988). As such the notions of personal ownership and
personal autonomy are closely linked to the notion of control. Learner autonomy
regarded as learner's psychological relation to the process of learning (Little, 1991), is
also closely linked to taking responsibility for one's learning. Autonomous learners are
capable of independently setting learning goals, choosing learning materials and
methods, making choices in organizing learning and defining criteria for evaluation
(Knowles, 1975, 1980). Owning a learning environment is to some extent similar to
owning physical objects such as books or digital devices. In context of PLEs,
ownership is rooted in a learner-controlled use of technology, especially the ability to
create, design, and operate an environment according to personal preferences (Buchem,
Attwell and Torres, 2011; Buchem, 2012). According to moral and philosophical
investigations about ownership, the dependency between the learner and the
environment can be characterized as ��control ownership��, whereas ��control�� may be
used to refer to the ability of a person to be the final arbiter of what is to be done with
an object (Christman 1994, p. 128). In this sense to own a learning environment means
to be able to use, control, modify or even destroy it in an independent way without the
consent of others. Ownership in terms of control means a private use of an object. In
addition the common meaning of ownership also implies the ability to sell or gain
income from ones property. Thus ownership and control are part of individual
autonomy (Christman 1994, p. 167). This is yet to emphasize that the concept of learner
control pertinent to the concept of PLEs radically differs from previous
conceptualizations of learner control in technology-based learning. In the PLE sense of
Journal of Literacy and Technology
25
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
learner control, the learner can build, use, change, adjust, abandon, lend, cede or even
destroy a learning environment or its parts without the consent of a teacher or another
external agent.
Research design
The study presented in this paper is guided by the following research questions:
How are control and ownership of learning environments perceived by learners from
different national and academic cultures and how do these perceptions impact
learning?
The conceptual model applied in the present research study used the
Antecedents-Consequences Model (ACM) proposed by Buchem (2012). Based on
theoretical underpinning of psychological ownership, the underlying assumption of the
ACM is that psychological ownership is influenced by a number of factors
(antecedents, such as students' perceived control of different elements of a learning
environment) and leads to certain outcomes (consequences, such as level of
engagement, creativity and productive uses of media). Based on the results of the first
study, it was expected that a learning environment is perceived as a PLE if learners
develop a feeling of ownership towards the elements of this environment. The present
study encompassed three main groups of variables, i.e. (a) perceived control as a factor
influencing psychological ownership (Antecedents), (b) the measure of psychological
ownership itself, and (c) learning effects (Consequences) resulting from ownership
(Figure 3).
Journal of Literacy and Technology
26
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Figure 3. The Antecedents-Consequences-Model (ACM) of the study.
The study incorporated the concept of psychological ownership by Pierce et al.
(2001) applied in the study by Buchem (2012). According to this model, ownership
comprises
five dimensions, i.e. (1) sense of responsibility, (2) sense of self-identity, (3)
sense of accountability, (4) sense of self-efficacy, and (5) sense of belongingness.
Sense
of responsibility is related to protecting and enhancing the object of possession, which
may include improvement, control and limiting access to others.
Sense of identity is
viewed as part of the self-concept and is established, maintained, reproduced and
transformed through interactions with tangible and intangible objects of possession.
Sense of accountability can be defined as an expectation to hold others accountable and
to be held accountable for what happens to and with objects of possession.
Sense of
self-efficacy is based on the concept developed by Bandura (1997) and describes the
belief in one's ability to reach goals, master difficult situations and succeed in relation
to both tangible and intangible objects of possession.
Sense of belongingness relates the
Journal of Literacy and Technology
27
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
feeling of attachment to places, objects and people (Pierce et al., 2001; Avey et al.,
2009).
Research method
The present study is an extension of an earlier study by Buchem (2012), which
was conducted at two universities in Germany with 50 students from three different
university courses and disciplines. An online survey including three scales, i.e.
psychological ownership scale, control scale and learning effects scale, was applied to
collect data. The present study revised and adjusted the three scales from the study by
Buchem (2012) based on reliability measures from the first study and on feedback from
experts in the PLE community. The current study was conducted with a wider and more
diverse group of learners in terms of age, language, cultural background and the area of
study. Given the international study sample, the survey was created in two language
versions (English and Catalan) and conducted using online tools LimeSurvey and
Google Forms. The research applied quantitative and qualitative methods to triangulate
conclusions. Quantitative data was analysed with SPSS and R software. Qualitative
data obtained by means of open questions in the survey was analysed and discussed
with students in respective courses.
Despite different educational contexts of learners participating in the study, all
students in the sample used Web 2.0 tools to construct their PLEs as part of ePortfolio
practice in university course. Students from all courses used different Web 2.0 tools to
support and document their learning during one semester. Following the idea
formulated by Conole and Alevizou (2010) about the need for systematical integration
of the social web in higher education, Web 2.0 tools were introduced as instruments for
Journal of Literacy and Technology
28
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
learning, knowledge construction and collaboration. The study sample included 76
students from the following courses:
(1) General Studies Program at Beuth University of Applied Sciences Berlin
(Germany): The general studies program (Studium Generale) at Beuth University is an
open, university-wide program aiming at academic and career development of students
from all accredited programs. Students who participated in the study were enrolled in
two courses in media sociology, i.e. ��Web 2.0 and the Society�� and ��Mobile Web and
the Society��. The sample for this research study included 45 bachelor and master
students from various programs including economics, computer sciences, engineering
and media design. Both courses integrate the concept of PLEs and ePortfolios into their
coursework. ePortfolios are primarily used to support research-based learning as
students work in small groups on own research projects throughout the semester. The
aim is to foster the use of digital media to create own PLE beyond the requirements of
the course. Students in the course ��Web 2.0 and the Society�� created their ePortfolios
combining different Web 2.0 tools, such as Wordpress, Tumblr, Twitter, Flickr, Storify,
Prezi, ScoopIt and SlideShare. Students in the course ��Mobile Web and the Society��
used Mahara as a main hub in which different artefacts and media (e.g. YouTube
videos, RSS feeds) were mashed and aggregated to create ePortfolios.
(2) Teacher Education Programme at the University of the Balearic Islands (Spain):
This program integrates the concept of PLEs and ePortfolios into coursework.
ePortfolios are created by students using Web 2.0 tools, in this way extending their
PLEs. The aim is to develop a positive attitude towards using technology in education.
The study sample comprised of 24 student teachers consisting of first and second-year
Journal of Literacy and Technology
29
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
students who study to become Infant Education Teachers. Student teachers at the local
branch in Ibiza of the Balearic Islands University create and maintain their ePortfolios
throughout their stay at the university. In this way students document their learning and
identity development as Infant Education teachers as well as use ICT for learning
during their education as teachers so that the experience is consistent enough to use ICT
as future teachers. The project has run since 2009/2010 and its evolution has been
positive (Tur, 2011; Tur and Urbina, 2012a and 2012b; Tur, 2013). The ePortfolio
project is based on three approaches by Barrett, (2009, 2010, 2011), Cambridge (2009,
2010) and Zubizarreta (2009). First, based on Barrett��s work, students build their
ePortfolio in three main steps: students create artefacts, document learning in a
chronological order and finally present their ePortfolios. Second, based on Cambridge��s
work, ePortfolios are used to foster the development of students��
networked selves and
symphonic selves which are closely related to Barrett��s three steps. Third, based on
Zubizarreta, students collaborate and reflect while documenting their learning.
(3) Online Master Programs at the University Duisburg-Essen (Germany): The master
programs ��Educational Media�� and ��Educational Leadership�� are designed as part time
study and blended learning with one or two on-campus events per semester. The
programs count around 100 participants per semester and are held in German language.
Participants mainly come from Germany and German speaking countries. The sample
from these courses comprised of 7 students from different courses. These courses
integrate the concept of PLEs into their coursework. New students are introduced to the
learning systems and become acquainted with a personal weblog. According to the
concept of a ��social hub��, the social learning management system of the study program
focuses on connecting students' PLEs (Hölterhof, Nattland & Kerres 2012). A basic set
Journal of Literacy and Technology
30
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
of tools is offered by the system for learners including a collaborative synchronous text
editing tool, an internal personal weblog, a poll tool, a messaging system. In
discovering the potential of Web 2.0 for collaboration and synchronous communication,
students can choose an internal weblog managed by the learning system or an external
weblog hosted on the web. Weblogs are used as tools to express the learning process
which corresponds with the ePortfolio approach. As part of ePortfolio students form
groups and cooperate to work on assignments. Students are given assignments for
blogging, reflecting and discussions in their weblogs. Using weblogs is required in
order to be permitted to the examination at the end of the course.
Research results
The study comprised a cross-cultural sample of 76 students from three different
universities and courses as described in the previous section (i.e. ��Berlin sample��,
��Ibiza sample�� and ��Duisburg sample��). Descriptive statistics related to these samples
are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Descriptive statistics of the study sample, n = 76
Berlin (Germany)
Ibiza (Spain)
Duisburg (Germany)
Language
German
Catalan
German
Study area
General Studies
Teacher Education
Online Master
Sample size
45 students
24 students
7 students
Journal of Literacy and Technology
31
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Below the results of several statistical tests are summarized following the key research
question:
How are control and ownership of learning environments perceived by
learners from different national and academic cultures and how do these perceptions
impact learning?
(A) Psychological ownership: These five dimensions of psychological ownership, i.e.
sense of responsibility, sense of self-identity, sense of accountability, sense of self-
efficacy, and sense of belongingness, were measured across the three samples based on
the scale with five items rated on the Likert scale from 1 (fully agree) to 5 (fully
disagree). Thus the lower the values, the more positive the result. Table 3 summarizes
statistical results for ownership scale.
Table 3: Statistics of psychological ownership (m = mean, sd = standard deviation), n =
76.
Likert scale 1-5: 1 = fully agree, 5 = fully disagree
Berlin
n = 45
Ibiza
n = 24
Duisburg
n = 7
Total
n = 76
1.1 Sense of
responsibility
m = 1.78
sd = .95
m = 2.29
sd = .91
m = 2.14
sd = .90
m = 1.97
sd = .95
1.2 Sense of self-
identity
m = 2.41
sd = .99
m = 1.83
sd = .96
m = 2.71
sd = .96
m = 2.29
sd = 1.02
1.3 Sense of
accountability
m = 2.36
sd = .80
m = 1.92
sd = 1.02
m = 2.86
sd = .69
m = 2.26
sd = .90
1.4 Sense of
m = 2.23
m = 1.75
m = 3.29
m = 2.28
Journal of Literacy and Technology
32
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Berlin
n = 45
Ibiza
n = 24
Duisburg
n = 7
Total
n = 76
self-efficacy
sd = 1.03
sd = .79
sd = 1.5
sd = 1.09
1.5 Sense of
belongingness
m = 2.07
sd = .86
m = 2.38
sd = .77
m = 3.86
sd = 1.07
m = 2.33
sd = .95
Total of 5
items
m = 2.21
sd = .96
m = 2.03
sd = .92
m = 2.97
sd = 1.15
m = 2.23
sd = .99
As Table 3 shows, the lowest (most positive) values across all five items measuring the
five dimensions of psychological ownership were reached by the Ibiza sample with m =
2.03 and the lowest standard deviation of sd = .92. This means that Ibizan students
developed the strongest feeling of ownership of their learning environments. In general,
students in all three samples developed a sound sense of ownership towards their
learning environment with the m = 2.23 and sd = 0.99. These results may indicate that
students perceived their ePortfolio based learning environment as their PLE, for
example students felt responsible for it, could identify with it, felt accountable for and
attached to the learning environment they created. Yet, the cut-off point for a learning
environment becoming a PLE to the individual learner is not straightforward. Further
studies should investigate the relationship between the ownership values and PLE in
more detail. As far as results for single dimensions are concerned, the lowest (most
positive) values across all three samples were reached for dimension ��sense of
responsibility�� with the m = 1.97 and sd = .95. In this respect, most positive values
Journal of Literacy and Technology
33
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
were reached for Berlin students with m = 1.78 and sd = .95, meaning that students in
Berlin felt more responsible for their learning environment than students in other two
samples. Since the sense of responsibility (item 1.1) towards the learning environment
was the most salient dimension of psychological ownership in all three samples,
especially in Berlin sample, a possible interpretation is that ePortfolio practice
promotes the responsibility of own learning, independent from the national or academic
culture. It is also interesting to highlight the fact that the lowest values related to
accountability (item 1.3) are achieved by Ibiza students, who are assessed to 50% based
on their ePortfolio performance. Further research should further investigate the question
raised by this result: Is there a relationship between type of assessment (e.g. ePortfolio)
and ownership, especially the sense of accountability?
(B) Learner control: The theory of psychological ownership by Pierce et al. (2001,
2003) defines control as one of the three key mechanisms (besides engagement and
identity) through which psychological ownership develops. The overall aim of
ePortfolio work in the courses participating in the study was to enhance learner control
in the sense of the PLE concept of learner control. However, the intended design may
be realised otherwise in situ or perceived differently by students. Therefore, it was not
the ��designed control�� but ��perceived control�� that was measured to explore students'
perceptions. The concept of perceived control was defined to encompass seven
dimensions of control with items derived from the research by Buchem, Attwell and
Torres (2011) and applied in the first study by Buchem (2012). These seven dimensions
were: (1) control of technology, (2) control of objectives, (3) control of content, (4)
control of planning, (5) control of design, (6) control of access rights, and (7) control of
Journal of Literacy and Technology
34
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
personal data. Altogether 7 items were applied to measure perceived control. Table 4
summarises the values for perceived learner control across the three samples.
Table 4: Statistics of perceived learner control (m = Mean, sd = Standard Deviation), n
= 76; Likert scale 1-5: 1 = fully agree, 5 = fully disagree
Berlin
n = 45
Ibiza
n = 24
Duisburg
n = 7
Total
n = 76
2.1 Control of
technology
m = 2.2
sd = 1.1
m = 2.63
sd = .77
m = 3.57
sd = 1.4
m = 2.46
sd = 1.1
2.2 Control of
objectives
m = 2.47
sd = 1.06
m = 2.5
sd = .88
m = 2.86
sd = 1.46
m = 2.51
sd = 1.04
2.3 Control of
content
m = 2.36
sd = 1.13
m = 2.42
sd = .78
m = 1.71
sd = 1.89
m = 2.41
sd = 1.11
2.4 Control of
planning
m = 1.78
sd = .93
m = 2.67
sd = 1.13
m = 2.14
sd = 1.95
m = 2.09
sd = 1.17
2.5 Control of
design
m = 2.33
sd = 1.13
m = 1.88
sd = 1.33
m = 3.86
sd = 1.21
m = 2.33
sd = 1.3
2.6 Control of
access right
m = 2.16
sd = 1.21
m = 2.88
sd = 1.3
m = 2.71
sd = 1.6
m = 2.53
sd = 1.35
2.7 Control of
m = 2.49
m = 2.42
m = 3.43
m = 2.55
Journal of Literacy and Technology
35
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Berlin
n = 45
Ibiza
n = 24
Duisburg
n = 7
Total
n = 76
personal data
sd = 1.22
sd = 1.34
sd = 1.62
sd = 1.3
Total 7 items
m = 2.25
sd = 1.13
m = 2.48
sd = 1.12
m = 3.13
sd = 1.64
m = 2.43
sd = 1.22
As Table 4 shows, the lowest (most positive) values across the seven dimensions of
perceived learner control were reached by the Berlin sample with the average value of
m = 2.25. This results raises the question why Berlin students felt more in control of
their learning environments than students in other samples? It seems that differences in
instructional design are a more plausible explanation than cultural differences.
Differences in perception of control can be further explored in specific dimensions. For
example, students in Berlin felt strongly in control of planning (item 2.4), while
students in Ibiza felt strongly in control of design (item 2.5) and students in Duisburg
felt strongly in control of content (item 2.3). These differences may be related to
different instructional designs in respective courses. For example, it may be that
students in Berlin were given more freedom to plan while students in Ibiza were given
more freedom to design. These also could be cultural differences related to educational
principles of course instructors. At the same time the values of perceived control in
terms of visual and structural design (item 2.5) are in general negative for the Duisburg
sample. The reason may be that students used tools embedded in the learning
management system that allowed for only little customisation of the look and feel.
Furthermore, the blog functionality used by students in Duisburg was for technical
Journal of Literacy and Technology
36
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
reasons readable by all other students in the study program, which may explain
negative values of perceived control of access rights and data privacy (items 2.6 and
2.7) in the Duisburg sample. These results compared to positive values of ownership
may indicate that although students in Duisburg felt the owners of their learning
environments, there were technological limitations which negatively effected the
perception of control. However, the ex ante examination of the relationship between
different instructional designs and different perceptions of control has certain limits as
freedom to make choices which educators grant to students is to a large extent
determined in context. Granting control is a negotiation process and takes place in
interaction between instructors and students. Further studies could therefore apply other
methodologies, such as interactional analysis, to determine the degrees of freedom
granted to students in practice and compare these with measures of perceived control.
Nevertheless, the differences in perceived control could be attributed to cultural
differences, especially related to discipline cultures. A possible explanation is that
students of technical disciplines in Berlin attached more value to control of planing
(item 2.4), while students of pedagogy in Ibiza attached more value to control of design
(item 2.5). These hypotheses should be tested in further studies, as the implications of
cross-cultural differences are relevant for culture-sensitive designs of learning
environments. Since perceived control related to planning was the most salient
dimension of learner control among all students in the all three samples, control of
planning seems to be an important design feature independent of national or discipline
culture. The negative values, however, were reached for control of objectives, control of
access rights and control of personal data. In general, these results can be understood
both in terms of instructional designs and cultural differences, such as learner control
Journal of Literacy and Technology
37
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
versus institutional control. As learning objectives may have been imposed and
perceived as compulsory by students, further research on PLE designs in formal
education should attempt to explore new ways of establishing learning objectives with
students. It should be explored further, if institutional control related to learning
objectives is meaningful in context of PLEs at all and how a balance between
educational objectives and learner autonomy could be reached.
Further, negative results were reached for perceived control of personal data.
This again may be the result of institutional applications of technology which from
students�� perspective lack flexibility and transparency. However, it could also be a
cultural issue, especially in terms of data privacy concerns in the academic culture.
Further research on PLE designs should try to improve perceived learner control in
relation to personal data.
The comparison of results in Tables 3 and 4 reveals some interesting findings of
possible relationships between perceived control and ownership. First, students in
Duisburg achieved most positive results in control of content (item 2.3) and at the same
time most negative results in the feeling of responsibility (item 1.1). This may mean
that being able to control the content has no significant effect on the feeling of
responsibility. The correlation analysis seems to support this interpretation. At the same
time, there is a strong relation between the sense of self-efficacy (item 1.4) and the
control of personal data (item 2.7) in the Duisburg sample (r = .835). However, these
observations would need to be further tested, e.g. by means of regression analysis. Also
students in Duisburg did not achieve any significant values in any item related to
psychological ownership despite – or perhaps because of - the fact that ePortfolio
Journal of Literacy and Technology
38
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
assignments were compulsory. Further research should try to understand how
compulsory tasks in context of PLEs affect learner control and ownership. Second,
findings reveal that students in Berlin obtained most positive values in control of
planning (item 2.4) and at the same time most positive values in the sense of
responsibility (item 1.1). Further research should investigate how perceived control of
planning affects the sense of responsibility. Third, students from Ibiza achieved the
most positive values in control of design (item 2.5) of their ePortfolio and at the same
time the most positive values in the sense of self-identity (item 1.2). The correlation
analysis confirms this relationship, r = .425. This may mean that Ibiza students focused
on designing the representations of their identity in their ePortfolio practice. Further
research should explore the role of perceived control of design on the sense of self-
identity and the PLE becoming a part of the self-concept.
(C) Cross-cultural differences: Beyond descriptive statistics and correlation analysis, t
test for independent means were computed to compare parameter values of the three
key variable sets, i.e. learner control, psychological ownership and learning effects,
across the three samples representing different cultures in terms of fields of study and
nationality. Altogether nine t tests were calculated for pairs of independent samples and
the significance assessed at the .05 level. The results of the t tests are summarized in
Table 5.
Table 5: T test results (m = mean, df = degree of freedom, p = probability), n = 76
Statistics
Learner
Berlin (m = 2.25) & Duisburg (m = 3.18):
t = -3.2174, df = 50, p < .05**
Journal of Literacy and Technology
39
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
control
Berlin (m = 2.25) & Ibiza (m = 2.48):
t = -1.4716, df = 67, p > .05*
Duisburg (m = 3.18) & Ibiza: (m = 2.48):
t = 1.9635, df = 29, p < .05**
Psychological
ownership
Berlin (m = 2.21) & Duisburg (m = 2.97):
t = -2.9571, df = 50, p < .05**
Berlin (m = 2.21) & Ibiza (m = 2.03):
t = 1.1396, df = 67, p > .05*
Duisburg (m = 2.97) & Ibiza (m = 2.03):
t = 3.3174, df = 29, p < .05**
Learning
effects
Berlin (m = 2.99) and Duisburg (m = 3.30):
t = -0.9281, df = 50, p > .05*
Berlin (m = 2.99) & Ibiza (m = 2.26):
t = 4.0059, df = 67, p < .05**
Duisburg (m = 3.30) & Ibiza (m = 2.26):
t = 4.0787, df = 29, p < .05**
* p > .05 = non significant
** p < .05 = significant
Results in table 5 indicate that there was no significant difference in how students in
Berlin and Ibiza perceived learner control and psychological ownership. This may
indicate that instructional designs in Berlin and Ibiza did not differ in a significant way.
However, due to significant differences in perceived control and ownership in the
Duisburg sample, instructional design in Duisburg was explored in more detail. In fact,
instructional design in Duisburg was different as most students could not freely choose
a tool to create their ePortfolios but had to use a blogging tool embedded in the learning
management system. The t-tests also reveal significant differences in learning effects of
students in Berlin and Duisburg compared to students in Ibiza. Possible predictors are
explored in the section below.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
40
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
(D) Learning effects: The Antecedents-Consequences-Model of the study considers
learning effect as a consequence of ownership and control. This is based on the
assumption that the sense of ownership and perceived learner control influence how
students engage and develop their learning environments. Learning effects in the study
were explored using a measure with six dimensions: (1) time invested (students
willingly invested time in learning), (2) student engagement (students did more than
was required by the teacher), (3) student creativity (students tried something new), (4)
interest orientation (students followed their interests), (5) self-direction (students felt
they were learning for themselves), (6) intrinsic motivation (learnig was more
important than grades), (7) social learning (students collaborated to learn), (8) future
use (students expect to create a similar learning environment in the future), (9)
continued use (students expect to continue to use their learning environment after the
course), (10) transfer (students expect to transfer the PLE idea to other areas), and (11)
transformation (PLE practice changed the way students learn). Since psychological
ownership and control have been viewed as positive resources for impacting attitudes,
e.g. higher commitment, responsibility (Avey, et al., 2009; Priece et al., 2001, 2003;
Van Dyne & Priece, 2004), it was expected that both ownership and control had a
positive impact on the learning effects. Learning effect statistics are summarised in
Table 8.
Table 8: Statistics of learning effects (m = mean, sd = standard deviation), n = 76;
Likert scale 1-5: 1 = fully agree, 5 = fully disagree
Learning effects
Berlin
n = 45
Ibiza
n = 24
Duisburg
n = 7
Total
n = 76
Journal of Literacy and Technology
41
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Learning effects
Berlin
n = 45
Ibiza
n = 24
Duisburg
n = 7
Total
n = 76
3.1 Time
invested
m = 2.6
sd = 1.07
m = 2.58
sd = .72
m = 2.86
sd = 1.35
m = 2.62,
sd = .99
3.2 Student
engagement
m = 2.78
sd = 1.33
m = 2.54
sd = 1.02
m = 3.71
sd = 1.38
m = 2.79,
sd = 1.27
3.3 Creativity
m = 2.71
sd = 1.12
m = 2.08
sd = .78
m = 3.14
sd = 1.21
m = 2.55,
sd = 1.08
3.4 Interest
orientation
m = 2.42
sd = .99
m = 2.13
sd = .9
m = 2.71
sd = 1.38
m = 2.36,
sd = 1.0
3.5 Self-
direction
m = 2.71
sd = 1.2
m = 2.38
sd = .71
m = 3.86
sd = 1.21
m = 2.71,
sd = 1.13
3.6 Intrinsic
motivation
m = 3.29
sd = 1.2
m = 2.54
sd = .78
m = 4.29
sd = .76
m = 3.14,
sd = 1.15
3.7 Social
learning
m = 3.06
sd = 1.05
m = 2.46
sd = .78
m = 2.86
sd = 1.21
m = 2.86,
sd = 1.02
3.8 Future
application
m = 2.96
sd = 1.20
m = 1.91
sd = .93
m = 2.86
sd = 1.57
m = 2.62,
sd = 1.24
3.9 Continued
m = 3.6
sd = 1.21
m = 2.33
sd = .96
m = 3.43
sd = 1.13
m = 3.18,
sd = 1.26
Journal of Literacy and Technology
42
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Learning effects
Berlin
n = 45
Ibiza
n = 24
Duisburg
n = 7
Total
n = 76
use
3.10 Learning
transfer
m = 3.4
sd = 1.29
m = 2.33
sd = .87
m = 3.14
sd = 1.57
m = 3.04,
sd = 1.28
3.11 Learning
transformed
m = 3.33
sd =1.07
m = 1.58
sd = .83
m = 3.43
sd = .97
m = 2.79,
sd = 1.28
Total of 7 items
m = 2.99
sd = 1.21
m = 2.26
sd = 0.88
m = 3.3
sd = 1.28
m = 2.79,
sd = 1.18
As Table 8 shows the self-assessment of learning effects in general among students
from all three samples reached on average slightly higher (more negative) values (m =
2.79) than ownership (m = 2.23) and control (m = 2.43). Students in Berlin and Ibiza
(compared to students in Duisburg) invested more time in the development of their
learning environments, were more engaged and more creative, followed their interests
more strongly and felt more strongly that they were learning for themselves. These are
interesting results which may indicate that the instructional design in Duisburg, which
was more compulsory and allowed for less freedom of choice, contributed to less
positive learning effects. However, intrinsic motivation, social learning, future
applications, continued use, learning transfer and transformation of learning as
dimensions of learning effects reached positive values only in the Ibiza sample. There is
a striking difference especially in the perception that ePortfolio practice transformed
Journal of Literacy and Technology
43
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
own learning (item 3.11). This indicates that the ePortfolio practice in the Ibiza sample
had the deepest impact on learning as it transformed the way students learn.
In general, highest (most negative) values were reached for dimensions
��continued use�� (m = 3.18) and ��intrinsic motivation�� (m = 3.14). This means that on
average students in all three samples felt it was rather unlikely they will continue to use
their learning environments created during the course and that grades (extrinsic value)
were no less important than learning (intrinsic value). Lowest (most positive) values
were reached for dimensions ��interest orientation�� (m = 2.36) and ��students creativity��
(m = 2.55). This means that students in all three samples followed their interests and
engaged in creative practice.
In order to explore the impact of perceived learner control and psychological
ownership on learning effects, several statistical tests were conducted, i.e. bivariate
correlations and regression analysis. The correlation analysis shows that there is an
overall significant correlation between control and ownership (r = .41, p < .01) and a
significant relationship between learning effects and ownership variables across all
samples (r = .68, p < .01). These results can be interpreted as of validation of the
Antecedents-Consequences Model applied in this study. Table 9 summarizes correlation
coefficients.
Table 9: Correlation results of the Antecedents-Consequences Model
Perceived control and ownership Ownership and learning effects
Journal of Literacy and Technology
44
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
(means)
(means)
All samples
r = .41, p < .001***
r = .68, p < .001***
*** p < .001 = highly significant
Also the results of the linear regression analysis with learning effects as dependent
variable and ownership as independent variable for all samples indicate that
psychological ownership is a good predictor of learning effects (R Square = .46),
explaining almost 50% of variance. Perceived control, on the other hand, explained
under 20% of variance (R Square = .17). The proposed model should however be tested
in further studies with larger samples.
Discussion
This paper presented the concept of learner control and ownership in context of
Personal Learning Environments and the results of a cross-cultural study aiming at
exploring possible differences in perception of control and ownership of learning
environments by learners from different national and academic cultures. The study
presented in this paper also proposed a measure of ��learning effects�� which can be used
to explore the impact of perceived control and ownership on learning. The results of the
study indicate that there may be certain cultural differences in perception of control and
ownership of learning environments, such as attaching more value to planning in
technical academic cultures rather than to control of design as compared to other
discipline cultures, including pedagogy. These differences should be, however, explored
in more detail in further studies, as the implications may be important for promoting
PLE design and practice by students from different academic backgrounds. However, it
seems that a number of differences in perceptions of control and ownership may be best
Journal of Literacy and Technology
45
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
explained by differences in instructional designs, especially in relation to how much
freedom of choice and thus control is granted to students in their PLE practice in formal
settings, e.g. higher education.
As the results of the study indicate, compulsory tasks and choice of media, little
possibilities to adjust the look and feel of PLE tools as well as application of
institutional tools such as learning management systems which from students'
perspective provide little control and transparency of personal data, may have a
negative impact on learning. The responses in the survey express a disjunction between
the instructional design aimed at activating students for ePortfolio work by formal
(compulsory) assignments and the student perception of their ePortfolio as a PLE. On
the other hand, as survey responses indicate, especially control of planning and control
of design have a positive impact on learning. This is reflected, among others, in
willingly investing time in learning, following their interests and being creative in
ePortfolio practice or even the perception that ePortfolio practice altogether transform
the way they learn. Thus perceived learner control, especially control of planning and
control of design (both intangible elements of Personal Learning Environments) should
be considered an important element of PLE practice and PLE design.
Conclusions
This paper provides a contribution to the discussion on learner control in context of
Personal Learning Environments. In line with the study by Buchem (2012), the results
presented in this paper point out to the fact that perceived control of intangible
elements, such as planning and design, may have more positive effects on learning than
Journal of Literacy and Technology
46
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
control of tangible elements, such as technical tools. This study also reveals the impact
of different PLE designs on learning.
It seems that more freedom of choice (e.g. objectives, tools) as well as
flexibility (e.g. planning) and transparency (e.g. personal data) may be beneficial to
learning effects. The future implication may be that learner control as postulated by the
PLE approach can be advanced to the next level, at which learners are able not only to
choose but also to create, for example developing the components of their PLE. This
would require learners to develop new skills, such as coding, as well as technical tools
to become low-threshold and user-friendly. Finally, this paper uncovers the topic of
control and ownership from a cross-cultural perspective and indicates that specific
elements of control may be more valued by learners from different national and
academic cultures. As a recommendation for further research, future studies should also
explore the possibilities of mobile technologies for enhancing perceived learner control
and psychological ownership in relation to Personal Learning Environments and its
impact on learning.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
47
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
References
Adell, J., and Castañeda, L. (2010). Los entornos personales de aprendizaje (ples): Una
nueva manera de entender el aprendizaje. In R. Roig Vila & M. Fiorucci (Eds.)
Claves para la investigaci��n en innovaci��n y calidad educativas. Alcoy: Marfil -
Roma TRE Universita degli studi.
Attwell, G. (2005). Recognising learning: Educational and pedagogic issues in e- portfolios.
Retrieved 1 March 2014 from http://es.scribd.com/doc/24852254/Recognising-
Learning-Educational-and-pedagogic-issues-in-e-Portfolios-Graham-Attwell
Attwell, G. (2007). E-Portfolios - the DNA of the personal learning environment?
Journal of
Elearning and Knowledge Society, 3(2), 39-61. Retrieved from
www.pontydysgu.org/wp.../eportolioDNAofPLEjournal.pdf
Attwell, G. (2012). Who owns the e-portfolio? Pontydysgu. Bridge to learning. Retrieved1
March 2014 from a http://www.pontydysgu.org/2012/09/who-owns-the-e-portfolio
Barrett, H. and Wilkerson, J. (2004). Competing paradigms in portfolio approaches.
Electronic portfolios. Retrieved 1 March 2014 from
http://electronicportfolios.org/systems/paradigms.html
Barrett, H. (2009).
Balancing 2 faces of eportfolios. Retrieved1 March 2014 from
http://electronicportfolios.com/balance/index.html
Barrett, H. (2010). Balancing the two faces of eportfolios
. Educação, Formação
&Tecnologias, 3 (1), 6-14. Retrieved from
http://www.eft.educom.pt/index.php/eft/article/viewFile/161/102
Journal of Literacy and Technology
48
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Barrett, H. (2011). Balancing the two faces of eportfolios. In S. Hirtz, K. Kelly (2011)
(Eds.).
Education for a digital world. Innovations in education, 2, British Columbia
Ministry of Education, 291-310. Retrieved from
http://www.openschool.bc.ca/info/edu/7540006133_2.pdf
Biggs, J., and Tang, C. (2011).
Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead, UK:
McGraw-Hill and Open University Press.
Brown, L. S. (1993).
The Politics of Individualism: Liberalism, Liberal Feminism, and
Anarchism. Montr��al/New York/London: Black Rose Books.
Buchem, I. (2012). Psychological Ownership and Personal Learning Environments. Do
possession and control really matter?
Proceedings of the PLE Conference 2012,
Aveiro, Portugal. Retrieved 1 March 2014 from
http://revistas.ua.pt/index.php/ple/article/viewFile/1437/1323
Buchem, I., Attwell, G. and Torres, R. (2011). Understanding personal learning
environments: Literature review and synthesis through the activity theory lens.
Proceedings of the The PLE Conference 2011, 10th - 12th July 2011, Southampton,
UK. Retrieved 1 March 2014 from: http://journal.webscience.org/658
Buchem, I., and Hamelmann, H. (2011). Developing 21stcentury skills: Web 2.0 in Higher
Education. A case study.
ELearning Papers, 24. Retrieved from
http://www.elearningpapers.eu/index.php?page=docidoc_id=18234idoclng=7ivol=24
Buchem, I. and P��rez-Sanagust��n, M. (2013). Personal Learning Environments in Smart
Cities: Current Approaches and Future Scenarios.
eLearning Papers, 35, November
Journal of Literacy and Technology
49
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
2013. Retrieved from http://openeducationeuropa.eu/sites/default/files/asset/In-
depth_35_1.pdf
Castañeda, L. and Adell, J. (2013). La anatom��a de los PLEs. In L. Castañeda y J. Adell
(eds)
Entornos personales de aprendizaje: claves para el ecosistema educativo en
red, Alcoy: Marfil, 11-28.
Chen, H. L. (2009). Using E-Portfolios to Support Lifelong and Lifewide Learning, In D.
Cambridge, B. L. Cambridge, K. B. Yancey, eds., Electronic Portfolios 2.0:
Emergent Research on Implementation and Impact. Sterling, VA: Stylus, 29–39.
Chen, H. L. and Light, T. P. (2010).
Electronic Portfolios and Student Success:
Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Learning. Washington, D.C.: Association of American
Colleges & Universities.
Christman, J. (1994). The myth of property: toward an egalitarian theory of ownership. New
York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Conole, G., and Alevizou, P. (2010).
A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in Higher
Education. HEA Academy, York, UK. Retrieved1 March 2014 from
http://oro.open.ac.uk/23154/
Cousin, G. (2006). An introduction to threshold concepts.
Planet Special Issue on Threshold
Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge, 17, 4-5. Retrieved from
www.gees.ac.uk/planet/p17/gc.pdf
Chung, J. and Reigeluth, C.M. (1992). Instructional prescriptions for learner control.
Educational Technology 32(10), 14-20.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
50
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Dan-Cohen, M. (1992). Responsibility and the Boundaries of the Self.
Harvard Law Review
105, (5), 959-1003.
Dworkin, G. (1988).
The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hölterhof, T., Nattland, A. and Kerres, M. (2012). Drupal as a Social Hub for Personal
Learning.
Proceedings of the PLE Conference 2012, Aveiro, Portugal. Retrieved 1
March 2014 from: http://revistas.ua.pt/index.php/ple/article/view/1453
Joyes, G., Gray, L. and Hartnell-Young, E. (2009). Effective practice with e-portfolios: How
can the UK experience inform practice.
Same Places, Different Spaces.
Proceedings
Ascilite Auckland 2009, 486-495. Retrieved 1 March 2014 from
www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/joyes.pdf
Kearney, M; Shuck, S.; Burden, K. and Aubusson, P. (2013). Viewing mobile learning from
a pedagogial perspective.
Research in Learning Technology, 20, 1-17. Retrieved
from http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/14406
Knowles, M.S. (1975).
Self-directed Learning. New York. Association Press.
Knowles, M.S. (1980).
The Modern Practice of Adult Education. From Pedagogy to
Andragogy. Chicago: Follett.
Laurillard, D.M. (1987). Computers and the emancipation of students: giving control to the
learner.
Instructional Science 16(1), 3-18.
Little, D. (1991).
Learner Autonomy: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin: Authentik.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
51
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Merrill, M.D. (1983). Component display theory. In C.M. Reigeluth, ed.
Instructional-
design theories and models, 279-334. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Meyer, J. and Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to
ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines.
Enhancing Teaching-Learning
Environments in Undergraduate Courses. Occasional Report 4. Retrieved 30 June
2013 from http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/ETLreport4.pdf
Milheim, W.D. and Martin, B.L. (1991). Theoretical bases for the use of learner control:
three different perspectives.
Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 18(3), 99-105.
Pateman, C. (2002). Self-Ownership and Property in the Person: Democratization and a Tale
of Two Concepts.
The Journal of Political Philosophy, 10, (1), 20-53. Retrieved 1
March 2014 from: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/pateman/Self-
Ownership.pdf
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T. And Dirks, K. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership
in organizations.
Academy of Management Review,
26, 298–310.
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T. And Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership:
integrating and extending a century of research.
Review of General Psychology,
7,
84–107.
Roder, J. and Brown, M. (2009). What leading educators say about Web 2.0, PLEs and e-
portfolios in the future. In
Same places, different spaces. Proceedings ascilite
Auckland 2009, 870-882. Retrieved 1 March 2014 from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/roder.pdf
Journal of Literacy and Technology
52
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Shepherd, C. E. and Skrabut, S. (2011). Rethinking electronic portfolios to promote
sustainability among teachers.
TechTrends, 55, (5), 31-38. Retrieved from
www.springerlink.com/index/611H10281598516J.pdf
Shroff, R. H., Trent, J. and Ng, E. M. W. (2013). Using e-portfolios in a field experience
placement: Examining student-teachers' attitudes towards learning in relationship to
personal value, control and responsibility.
Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology. 29, (2), 143-160.
Tur, G. (2011) Eportfolios and PLEs in Teacher Education. First results.
Proceedings of the
The PLE Conference 2011, 1-10, Southampton, UK. Retrieved 1 March 2014 from:
http://journal.webscience.org/578/
Tur G. (2013).
Projecte de portafoli electr��nic amb eines de la Web 2.0 als estudis de Grau
d��Educaci�� Infantil de la UIB a la Seu d��Eivissa.Estudi de cas. Thesis. University of
the Balearic Islands. TDX database. Retrieved from
http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/111339
Tur, G. & Urbina, S. (2012a). PLE-based ePortfolios: Towards Empowering Student
Teachers�� PLEs through ePortfolio Processes.
Proceedings of the PLE Conference,
University of Aveiro, Portugal. Retrieved 1 March 2014 from
http://revistas.ua.pt/index.php/ple/article/view/1438
Tur, G. and Urbina, S.(2012b). Documentando el aprendizaje en portafolios electr��nicos:
una experiencia con herramientas de la Web 2.0.
Congreso Internacional Edutec
2012, 656-669. Retrieved 1 March 2014 from
http://gte.uib.es/pape/gte/sites/gte.uib.es.pape.gte/files/aprendizajeeportfolios.pdf
Journal of Literacy and Technology
53
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Wilson, B.G. and Jonassen, D.H. (1989). Hypertext and instructional design: some
preliminary guidelines.
Performance Improvement Quarterly 2(3), 34-49.
Zubizarreta, J (2009).
The Learning Portfolio. Reflective Practice for Improving Student
Learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
54
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
A Pedagogy-driven Framework for Integrating Web 2.0 tools into
Educational Practices and Building Personal Learning
Environments
Ebrahim Rahimi
PhD candidate
Delft University of technology
Netherlands
e.rahimi@tudelft.nl
Jan van den Berg
Full Professor in Cyber Security,
Delft University of technology
Netherlands
j.vandenberg@tudelft.nl
Wim Veen
Full Professor in eLearning,
Delft University of technology
Netherlands
w.veen@tudelft.nl
Journal of Literacy and Technology
55
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Abstract
While the concept of Web 2.0 based Personal Learning Environments (PLEs)
has generated significant interest in educational settings, there is little consensus
regarding what this concept means and how teachers and students can develop and
deploy Web 2.0 based PLEs to support their teaching and learning activities. In this
paper a conceptual framework for building Web 2.0 based PLEs is proposed. The
framework consists of four main elements, including (
i) student��s control model, (
ii)
learning potential of Web 2.0 tools and services, (
iii) project-based teaching approach,
and (
iv) technology-enhanced learning activities. The main purpose of the framework is
to assist teachers to design appropriate Web 2.0 based learning activities. Students then
can accomplish these learning activities to develop their PLEs and complete their
learning projects.
Introduction
In recent years innovations in web technologies along with the new learning
requirements laid down by the knowledge society have led to the emergence of three
fundamental shifts in technology enhanced learning (TEL) including: (
i) a shift from a focus
on content to communication, (
ii) a shift from a passive to a more interactive engagement of
students in the educational process, and (
iii) a shift from a focus on individual learners to
more socially situated learning (Conole, 2007). There is overwhelming evidence
corroborating the notion that Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs), as the mainstream in
TEL initiatives, despite some successes, have failed to address these shifts (Chatti,
Agustiawan, Jarke, & Specht, 2010; Attwell, 2010; Downes, 2006). These systems mainly
follow and support the
learning from technology approach (Jonassen & Reeves, 1995)
manifested in technology-push, course-centered, content-based, and teacher-driven
Journal of Literacy and Technology
56
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
educational processes (Chatti et al., 2010; Attwell, 2010). As a result, the underlying
assumption of these systems presumes a passive and controlled role for students in their
educational practices (Dron, 2007).
Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) have been suggested as a solution for the
challenges mentioned above (Attwell 2007; Downes, 2006; Valtonen et al. 2012; Dabbagh &
Kitsantas, 2012). An overwhelming number of authors contended that PLEs, as rooted in
socio-cultural and constructivist theories of learning and knowledge building as well as
facilitated by the popularity of Web 2.0 tools and social software, have potential to support
collaborative learning, communities of practice, personal development, self-directed and
lifelong learning (McLoughlin & Lee, 2010; Wilson et al., 2009; Johnson & Liber, 2008;
Drexler, 2010). According to Attwell (2007), PLEs are activity spaces in which students
interact and communicate with each other and experts the ultimate result of which is the
development of collective learning. As argued by McLoughlin & Lee (2010), the conceived
goal of PLEs is to enable students, not only to consume content, but to remix, produce, and
express their personal presentation of knowledge. Furthermore, it has been argued that PLEs
presume and support an active role for students by placing them in the center of their learning
processes, corroborating their sense of ownership of learning, and enhancing their control in
educational process (Downes, 2006; Buchem, 2012).
Knowing the potential of PLEs, the question how to develop Web2.0-based PLEs in
educational settings to address these challenges is posed. Indeed, while there is an increasing
number of suitable Web 2.0 tools, robust theoretical-based technological and pedagogical
roadmaps to build PLEs are unavailable. As a result, educators at different educational levels
are forced to adapt and rethink their teaching approaches in conjunction with the advent of
new web technologies and the learning requirements of the knowledge society ��without a
Journal of Literacy and Technology
57
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
clear roadmap for attending to students�� various needs�� (Kop, 2008). Furthermore, while
supporting student��s control appears to be an essential aim of PLEs (Attwell, 2007), there is
little consensus regarding what this concept means and how it is to be attained by developing
Web 2.0 based PLEs (Väljataga & Laanpere, 2010; Buchem, 2012).
Inspired by these observations, in this paper we develop a framework to support teachers
in facilitating the main dimensions of student control by designing appropriate learning
activities using the learning potential of Web 2.0 tools and services.
Framework for developing Web 2.0 based PLEs
Supporting the personal development of students and enhancing their control in
educational process by using web technologies are the main objectives of building and
deploying PLEs (Johnson & Liber, 2008; Drexler, 2010). Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006)
argue that in order to help students to acquire the required skills for learning and working in
the knowledge-based society, they should participate in designing and developing their
learning environments. Along similar lines some authors remarked that the participation of
students in designing and developing their learning environment can strengthen their control
in educational process (Valjataga & Laanpere, 2010; Drexler, 2010). Applying this approach
to developing and deploying PLEs requires adopting a constructivist-based
learning with
technology concept (Jonassen & Reeves, 1995). From the perspective of this concept, instead
of leaving technology to the hands of instructional designers to ��predefine and constrain
learning process�� of students, it should be given to students to use as constructing tool to
support their personal development and learning by building their learning environments and
expressing what they know.
In an attempt to formulate a solution to support student��s control in educational process by
developing and deploying Web 2.0 PLEs, we proposed a conceptual framework shown in
Journal of Literacy and Technology
58
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Figure 1. The framework illustrates how Web 2.0 technologies, the student��s control model
and the teaching process should interact with each other in order to define appropriate
technology-enhanced learning activities to be accomplished by students to build and apply
their PLEs. According to this framework, by facilitating the student��s control through student-
centric instructional approaches (i.e. project-based learning), it is likely that students will start
to engage in several learning activities by means of Web 2.0 tools. As a result, it can reveal
the ways that they employ technology to manage their learning process providing the teacher
with opportunities to acquire a deep understanding and knowledge about students�� learning
process as a means to improve their teaching process. Moreover, the engagement of students
and teachers with Web 2.0 technologies can help them to explore the affordances and learning
potential of these technologies and operationalize these affordances to enrich their
educational practices.
Figure 1: A conceptual framework for developing Web 2.0 PLEs
Student control model
Supporting students to achieve more control over their learning process and become
autonomous learners is pivotal to the learner-centric learning theories such as self-regulated
Journal of Literacy and Technology
59
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
and self-directed learning theories (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012). Student��s control over the
learning process is concerned with the degree to which the student can influence and direct
her learning experiences and it relates to several aspects of the educational process, including
the selection of what is learned, the pace and strategies of learning, the choices of methods
and timing of assessments, and choosing learning resources such as online communities and
networks, web tools, and content (Kirschner, 2002; Dron, 2007; Valjataga & Laanpere, 2010;
Buchem, 2012). As stated by Kirschner (2002), strengthening of student��s control over the
educational process will place the student in a ��position of importance�� and by giving them
the feeling of more control over their learning experience, it will be more rewarding for the
student. Along similar lines, Buchem (2012) demonstrated that there is a significant
relationships between perceived control, sense of ownership and uses of a learning
environment. Accordingly, Buchem (2012) argued that supporting student��s control opens her
an opportunity to make choices during the learning activity to effect certain learning
outcomes and perceive the learning activity with more personal meaning.
Figure 2 presents the suggested model to support student control in PLEs. We developed
this model by adopting and appropriating the learner��s control dimensions model proposed by
Garrison & Baynton (1987). According to Garrison & Baynton (1987), learner control is not
achieved simply by supporting their independency. Rather than it can be attained only by
establishing a dynamic balance between
independence (i.e. learner��s freedom to choose what,
how, when, and where to learn),
power (i.e. cognitive abilities and competencies) and
support
(i.e. learning resources the learner needs in order to carry out the learning process and keep
control over learning process) through the process of communication between teachers and
students.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
60
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
To support the active and constructing roles of students in PLEs, we translated power,
support and independence dimensions into the active roles a student should undertake in
PLE-based learning, namely knowledge producer, socializer, and decision maker,
respectively. The student��s control model is based on the assumption that students in order to
be in control of their learning process should act as (
i) knowledge producers to
achieve
control by acquiring relevant cognitive capabilities, (
ii) socializers to
keep control by learning
skills needed to seek support, and (
iii) decision makers to
practice control through the
personal endeavors to manage web technologies for enriching their learning experiences. The
model also explains how to make a balance between these roles by supporting and
encouraging activities for
co-producing knowledge,
developing personal knowledge
management strategies, and
developing personal learning network. Furthermore, by
considering the PLE as output, not input, of the learning process, the model underscores the
constructivist-based nature of the PLE-based learning.
Figure 2: The proposed model for supporting student control in Web 2.0 PLEs
Journal of Literacy and Technology
61
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Student-centric instructional approaches
To support and corroborate student control, teachers should adopt a more activity-oriented
and student-centric rather than lecture-based teaching approach. Project-based learning (PBL)
is an appropriate approach to support student control model. Firstly, PBL can support the
knowledge producer role of students through involving them in knowledge building and
higher-level cognitive activities such as engagement with more complex problems and
pursuing solutions to them, asking and refining questions, collecting and analyzing data,
knowledge and idea presentation, drawing conclusions, and creating artifacts (Blumenfeld et
al., 1991; Chen & Chen, 2007). Secondly, through participating in designing and doing
learning projects, students can acquire personal and metacognitive skills needed to improve
their decision making skills such as designing plans or experiments, time and project
management, making predictions, selecting appropriate content and, choosing relevant web
tools (Chen & Chen, 2007). Thirdly, PBL can develop the social skills of students through
collaborating with peers and experts, communicating their ideas and findings to others,
improving their willingness to accept peer critiques and revise their projects, and promoting
them to work collaboratively in groups to achieve the projects objectives (Blumenfeld et al.,
1991; Chen & Chen, 2007). Finally, the involvement of the students in defining and
completing the project ��can create a sense of accomplishment and control for students which
is absent in traditional classroom instruction�� (Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1998).
Learning potential of Web 2.0 tools and services
Web 2.0 tools and services are receiving intense and growing interest across all sectors of
the educational industry as means for facilitating the transformation of learning (Alexander,
2006; Couros, 2010; McLoughlin & Lee, 2010). These tools and services can support creative
and collective contribution, knowledge producing and the development of new ideas by
Journal of Literacy and Technology
62
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
students (Nelson, Angela, & Clif, 2009). Furthermore, they can provide students with ��just-
in-time�� and ��at-your-fingertips�� learning opportunities in a way that typical learning
management systems cannot (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2011).
In order to investigate the ways that Web 2.0 technologies can support student control
model, we need to elicit their learning potential. Due to the steadily increasing heterogeneity
of Web 2.0 technologies and ambiguousness of Web 2.0 concept, it is difficult to reach
consensus about the meaning, notion, and borders of Web 2.0 technologies. Hence, we need
to consider the gravitational core and underlying concepts of Web 2.0 to depict a picture of
their learning potential and map them to the elements of the student��s control model.
Alexander (2006) enumerated the gravitational core and underlying concepts of Web 2.0 as
below:
•
Social software: a software application which provides an architecture of participation for
end users to support collaboration and harnessing of collective intelligence by extending
or deriving ��added value�� from human social behavior and interactions (O��Reilly, 2005).
•
Micro-content: a metaphor for the nature of user-generated content in Web 2.0 including
blog posts, wiki conversations, RSS feeds, podcasts, vodcasts, and tweets, compared to the
page metaphor of Web 1.0.
•
Openness: refers to the free availability of web tools and user-generated content.
•
Folksonomy: user-generated taxonomies which are dynamic and socially or
collaboratively constructed, in contrast to established, hierarchical taxonomies that are
typically created by experts in a discipline or domain of study (Dabbagh & Rick, 2011).
•
Sophisticated interfaces: refer to the drag and drop, semantic, widget-based websites
created by using AJAX, XML, RSS, CSS, and mashup services (Bower, Hedberg, &
Kuswara, 2010).
The potential of Web 2.0 to support students as knowledge producers
Web 2.0 is drawing several new perspectives to knowledge development within
educational settings, which were not possible before. Firstly, as asserted by Mejias (2005),
the openness nature of Web 2.0 makes it possible for social software applications to impact
knowledge building process within classroom by connecting the classroom activities ��to the
world as a whole, not just the social part that exists online��. Indeed, by considering the
knowledge building as a ��civilization-wide�� process, these technologies afford students to
Journal of Literacy and Technology
63
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
��connect with civilization-wide knowledge building and to make their classroom work a part
of it�� (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006).
Secondly, in recent years, affected by increasing attentions towards social approaches of
learning and knowledge building, a fundamental shift in technology enhanced learning from a
focus on content to a focus on co-constructing knowledge and communication around the
content has been emerged (Conole, 2007). Gunawardena, Lowe and Anderson (1997)
illustrated five developmental stages for co-constructing knowledge in collaborative learning
environments including (
i) sharing and comparing of information, (
ii) discovering of
inconsistency among the information, (
iii) negotiating the meaning and co-construction of
knowledge through social negotiation, (
iv) testing and modification of co-constructed
knowledge, and (
v) agreement and application of newly constructed knowledge and meaning.
Arguably, the architecture of participation and openness aspects of Web2.0 can facilitate the
communicational process and information needed to support the co-construction of
knowledge by students.
Thirdly, Web 2.0 can support the appropriation of content by students. Appropriation as
the ��ability to meaningfully sample and remix media content�� (Jenkins, 2006) makes student
simultaneously as the producer and consumer of content and can be understood as a learning
process in which students learn through picking several content (sampling) and putting them
back together (remixing) to produce new content and knowledge objects such as ideas,
discussions, conversations, comments, replies, concept maps, webpages, podcasts, wikis, and
blog posts (Jenkins, 2006). Appropriation as a student-driven knowledge producing strategy
is in line with the new knowledge development approaches which underscore the importance
of increasing the students�� capacity to know more rather than what currently they know,
through equipping them with competencies required to engage with social and technological
Journal of Literacy and Technology
64
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
changes. Combining the participatory, micro-content, and openness aspects of Web 2.0
facilitates a unique sort of participatory appropriation process known as ��collaborative
remixability�� that recombines the information and micro-content generated by students to
create new content, concepts, and ideas (McLoughlin & Lee, 2010; Chen & Chen, 2007;
Alexander, 2006).
Taken together, different aspects of Web 2.0 can enrich the learning experiences of
students and nurture their cognitive skills by providing them opportunities to practice
��learning by doing�� (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989), to experience ��learning with
technology�� (Jonassen & Reeves, 1995), and construct a personal presentation of knowledge
and share it with others. In addition, by involving students in active construction of
knowledge, teachers can achieve a comprehensive understanding of the ways that students
learn, the sorts of content and technology they use, and the patterns of interactions they
establish as a means to improve their teaching practices.
The potential of Web 2.0 to support students as socializers
The value and real power of Web 2.0 technologies is in their sociability aspect. This
sociability aspect has changed the way that ��participations�� spread and people behave by
making it feasible to build connections and networks between them (Boyd, 2007). From a
learning perspective, the sociability aspect of Web2.0 offers students learning opportunity
that is in line with their normal ways of learning and can enable them to integrate the explicit
and tacit dimensions of knowledge (O��Reilly, 2005). On this basis, as stated by Dabbagh &
Rick (2011), the inextricable link between ��learning as a social process�� and sociability
aspect of Web 2.0 is transforming learning spaces, perspectives and interactions.
Web 2.0 can support the socializer role of students in three levels. Firstly, it can facilitate
student-centered instruction. Indeed, Web 2.0 can trigger deep and active interactions
Journal of Literacy and Technology
65
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
between teacher and students through supporting conversational interactions; social feedback;
and social networks. As a result, it can improve the negotiated control between teacher and
students and raise levels of students�� engagement and motivation (McLoughlin & Lee, 2010;
Attwell 2007). Secondly, Web 2.0 can foster interaction and social learning between students.
By getting help of social software, students can participate collaboratively with each other to
the ��authorship of content��, obtain support and guidance from others, work together as a
learning community, and share their resources, knowledge, experiences and responsibilities
(Bower et al., 2010). Social bookmarking and RSS services can provide a great way to
support students to bookmark, tag, and disseminate information, people, and learning
experiences. These tags then can be arranged to develop tag clouds to visualize the ways that
students are working and learning (Alexander, 2006). Being able to have access to other
students�� tags cloud provide the opportunity for students to see each other experiences and
competencies resulting in being aware of the new streams of information, supporting
vicarious and social learning and triggering students�� reflection (Dabbagh &Rick, 2011).
Additionally, as pointed out by Dabbagh & Rick (2011), folksonomy as a context-based
mechanism for supporting social tagging and sharing the personal experiences of people can
be seen as the ��language of a community to form connections�� between the members of the
community. In classroom settings students can use this language to communicate and support
��socio-semantic networking�� and create learning environment through tagging, annotating
and sharing web resources and learning experiences. Thirdly, the social and openness aspects
of Web 2.0 make it possible to connect students to ��More Knowledgeable Others�� outside of
the classroom boundaries (Attwell, 2010). As claimed by Peña-L��pez (2012), this possibility
can broaden the horizon of students�� personal development by making a close link between
PLEs and Zone of Proximal Development, or ZPD, (Vygotsky, 1978) concepts. According to
Journal of Literacy and Technology
66
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Peña-L��pez (2012), PLEs could be understood both as the ZPD and the full set of More
Knowledgeable Others in terms of ��people of flesh and blood��, open educational resources,
and all sorts of digital content. Accordingly, he contends that PLEs can extend the borders of
students�� ZPD by providing them with more developmental opportunities and support.
The potential of Web 2.0 to support students as decision makers
As the locus of control is shifting from institutions and teachers to students, the decision
making abilities of students as the core part of self-directed and self-organizing learning
behaviors are gaining more attention. Web 2.0 can support the decision making role of
students in three dimensions. Firstly, the abundance of Web 2.0 tools along with the intensive
contact of today��s students with technology provide an unprecedented opportunity for
supporting self-organizing and self-directing students to explore the web to satisfy their
heterogeneous learning needs (Veen & Vrakking, 2006; Brown, 2000). According to Brown
(2000), the permanent contact of today��s students with web technologies and the open nature
of web, provide them with opportunity to be the discoverers and thinkers of relevant
technologies and learning resources and then to be the conveyors of them to their educational
settings. As a result, students are intensively showing a new behavior called bricolage, i.e.
��the ability to find something - an object, tool, document, a piece of code - and to use it to
build something you deem important��, which is compatible with their natural spirit of
exploration (Brown, 2000). This technology-induced behavior can provide an exploratory-
based learning situation which educators can use to corroborate the role of students as
decision makers by prompting them to manage their learning process through designing and
developing personal knowledge and technology management strategies (Rahimi, Van den
Berg, & Veen, 2013a, 2013b).
Journal of Literacy and Technology
67
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Secondly, selecting the most appropriate technologies to support teaching and learning
activities is becoming more and more complicated due to the growing heterogeneity of
available web tools and resources (Couros, 2010). This growing heterogeneity can trigger
several learning processes and corroborate the role of students as decision makers in
educational process. As illustrated by Couros (2010), the heterogeneity of Web 2.0 tools and
services is enforcing teachers and students to acquire new skills in order to discover learning
affordances of these tools and integrate them in their educational processes. As a result,
choosing what to learn, what tools to use, how to find the right tool or content, and what
community to join are becoming prevalent processes in today��s learning and position decision
making as an important learning skill for educators and students (Siemens, 2004). Moreover,
according to O'Reilly (2005), the features and functionalities of Web 2.0 tools are considered
to be in a ��perpetual beta�� state. On this basis, the permanent and extensive contact of
students with Web 2.0 tools beside ��unceasing development�� of these tools can posit students
as pioneer explorers of new functionalities of Web 2.0. As a result, it can change the
expectations from the students and open a great opportunity for them to act as decision
makers, co-designers, and partners in educational processes.
Thirdly, the sophisticated interfaces of Web 2.0 support easy development of the drag and
drop, semantic, widget-based websites by using AJAX, XML, RSS, CSS, and mash-up
services. As a result, students can use these technologies to manage their learning activities
not only by remixing of content but also by mashing up of tools and services. This feature of
Web2.0 along with the provision of opportunity for students to make decision regarding their
learning trajectory, can provide possibility for them to develop their PLEs by adding their
personal choices including learning content, tools, and peers into them. Figure 3 summarizes
Journal of Literacy and Technology
68
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
the learning potential of Web 2.0 and depicts a map between these potential and the elements
of the student��s control model.
Figure 3: Mapping the learning potential of Web 2.0 into student control model
Technology-enhanced learning activities
To design technology-enhanced learning activities, we adopted and appropriated the
Bloom��s digital taxonomy map proposed by Churches (2008). Bloom��s taxonomy (Bloom,
1956) represents the cognitive process dimensions as a continuum from lower order thinking
skills to higher thinking skills being: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) revised Bloom��s taxonomy by
assigning a number of sup-process to each dimension and defining
creating as a new higher
order thinking skill. Thus, the revised Bloom��s taxonomy has proposed a new continuum of
Journal of Literacy and Technology
69
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
thinking process consisting of
remembering,
understanding,
applying,
analyzing,
evaluating
and
creating sub-processes. Churches (2008) extended the revised Bloom��s taxonomy and
proposed Bloom��s digital taxonomy map by assigning digital learning activities to these
cognitive processes as below:
•
Remembering: recognizing, listing, describing, identifying, retrieving, naming,
locating, finding, bullet pointing, highlighting, bookmarking, social networking,
social bookmarking, favorite-ing/local bookmarking, searching, googling.
•
Understanding: interpreting, summarizing, inferring, paraphrasing, classifying,
comparing, explaining, exemplifying, advanced searching, Boolean searching, blog
journaling, twittering, categorizing and tagging, commenting, annotating, subscribing.
•
Applying: implementing, carrying out, using, executing, running, loading, playing,
operating, hacking, uploading, sharing, editing.
• Analyzing: comparing, organizing, deconstructing, attributing, outlining, finding,
structuring, integrating, mashing, linking, reverse-engineering, cracking, mind-
mapping, validating, tagging.
•
Evaluating: checking, hypothesizing, critiquing, experimenting, judging, testing,
detecting, monitoring, blog/vlog commenting, reviewing, posting, moderating,
collaborating, networking, reflecting, (alpha & beta) testing.
•
Creating: designing, constructing, planning, producing, inventing, devising, making,
programming, filming, animating, blogging, video blogging, mixing, remixing, wiki-
ing, publishing, vodcasting, podcasting, directing/producing, creating or building
mash ups.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
70
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Figure 4: Mapping Bloom��s digital taxonomy into student control model
Figure. 4 shows an example of mapping Bloom��s digital taxonomy into the defined roles
for students in the student��s control model. Teachers can use this map to design appropriate
technology-enhanced learning activities to assist and scaffold students to develop and deploy
Web 2.0 based PLEs and accomplish their learning projects. According to this map, the PLE
development process includes two sub-processes consisting of lower-order technology-
enhanced learning activities, and higher-order technology-enhanced learning activities. To
develop their PLEs students can start with accomplishing the lower-order technology-
Journal of Literacy and Technology
71
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
enhanced learning activities and then continue by running the higher-order technology-
enhanced learning activities.
The map can support the key elements of the student��s control model. Indeed,
accomplishing learning activities such as advanced searching, tagging, blogging, twitting,
mind mapping, and evaluating, remixing and appropriating of content can arguably provide
students with the opportunity to acquire appropriate domain-specific knowledge, cognitive
skills and competencies. During this process which can be characterized as learning by doing
and content building process, it is likely that students acquire technical skills about the web
tools and their learning potential which, as argued by Drexler (2010), can improve their
autonomy during their learning processes. It should be noted that, to support the inherent
personal development approach embedded in the PLE concept, appropriation of content
should promote and facilitate a personal developmental trajectory for students. Indeed,
without careful consideration of this developmental trajectory, according to Scardamalia and
Bereiter (2006), any activity-based learning experiences can easily decline to a form of
��shallow constructivism�� or ��doing for the sake of doing.�� Accordingly, to avoid this
drawback and to emphasize the importance of the process of content building, appropriate
learning activities such as reflecting, self-evaluating, creating personal meaning from learning
experiences, and evaluating the quality of online content are required. This type of learning
activities can foster internal learning abilities such as self-reflecting and develop critical
thinking regarding the options and range of possibilities to select and evaluate content.
The social context of learning environment can assist students to keep control by
providing them learning resources and relevant support they need to overcome the difficulties
faced during the learning process and assisting them to make appropriate decisions (Garrison
& Baynton, 1987). In technology-based learning environments such as PLEs, there are five
Journal of Literacy and Technology
72
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
sorts of interaction between the student and their social context, namely teacher-student,
student-students, student-people outside of classroom, student-content, and student-interface
(Moore, 1989; Hillman, Willis, & Gunawardena, 1994). The first three interactions outline
the socializer role, while the last two interactions are related to the knowledge producer and
decision maker roles of student, respectively. By defining the social learning activities such
as social tagging, annotating, and group forming the map can assist students to learn and
practice the principles of being a socializer to seek and achieve needed support to keep their
control.
The map can augment the decision making role of students by allowing them to find, use,
assess, and introduce relevant web tools and services. It also can corroborate the role of
students in planning and designing educational practices by allowing them to explore and
introduce the learning potential of web tools. It also encourages them to develop personal
knowledge management strategy through tagging, categorizing, filtering and mashing up of
content and services.
Requirements for implementing the model
There is a set of prerequisite conditions needed to be considered in order to implement this
approach in a classroom setting. These requirements include:
•
Defining a learning project: The learning project gives a meaning and direction to the
students�� learning activities. It also defines the tangible and measureable learning
objectives and expected outcomes needed by the assessment and evaluation rubric.
•
Meeting technological requirements: i.e. providing reasonable access to Internet and
required web tools, providing an initial technical platform to keep students�� PLEs
together and allow them to observe each other learning experiences.
•
Providing initial support: i.e. appropriate learning content, a list of relevant experts
outside of the classroom setting to contact, guidelines to evaluate the quality and
validity of online content, training students the basic functionalities of the selected
web tools, defining an appropriate group working mechanism, and defining
appropriate assessment and evaluation rubric.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
73
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Conclusion
This paper proposes a pedagogy-driven framework for developing Web 2.0 based PLEs in
educational settings. Supporting students�� control through defining and adopting active roles
in order to equip them with necessary competencies and skills needed to deal with the
challenges of current knowledge intensive era is the main objective of this framework.
Teachers can use this framework as a guideline to design appropriate enhanced technology-
based learning activities to scaffold and assist students to develop and deploy Web 2.0 based
PLEs to accomplish their learning projects. Further research is supposed to be needed to test,
evaluate and improve the roadmap introduced.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
74
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
References
Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning?
Educause review 41(2), 32.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning,
teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives.
Allyn & Bacon.
Attwell, G. (2007). Personal Learning Environments-the future of eLearning?.eLearning
Papers, 2(1), 1-8.
Attwell, G. (2010). Personal learning environments and Vygotsky. Retrieved from
http://www.pontydysgu.org/2010/04/personal-learning-environments-and-vygotsky/
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956).
Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York:
David McKay, 19(56).
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A.
(1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the
learning. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 369-398.
Bower, M., Hedberg, J. G., & Kuswara, A. (2010). A framework for Web 2.0 learning
design. Educational Media International, 47(3), 177-198.
Boyd, D. (2007). The significance of social software. BlogTalks reloaded: Social software
research & cases, 15-30.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational researcher,18(1), 32-42.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
75
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Brown, J. S. (2000). Growing up: Digital: How the web changes work, education, and the
ways people learn. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 32(2), 11-20.
Buchem, I., Attwell, G., & Torres, R. (2011). Understanding Personal Learning
Environments: Literature review and synthesis through the Activity Theory lens.
Proceedings of the second PLE Conference,(pp. 1-33). Southampton, UK.
Buchem, I. (2012).Psychological Ownership and Personal Learning Environments: Do sense
of ownership and control really matter?. Proceedings of the 3th PLE Conference,
Aveiro, Portugal. Retrieved from:
http://revistas.ua.pt/index.php/ple/article/view/1437/1323.
Chatti, M.A, Agustiawan, M.R., Jarke, M., & Specht, M.(2010). toward a personal Learning
Environment Framework. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning
Environments, 1(4), 66-85.
Chen, P., & Chen, H. (2007). Knowledge building and technology dynamics in an online
project-based learning community. International Journal of Technology in Teaching
and Learning, 3(2), 1-16.
Churches, A.(2008). Bloom's taxonomy blooms digitally. Tech & Learning, 1.
Conole, G. (2007). Describing learning activities. Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age:
Designing and delivering e-learning, 81-91.
Couros, A. (2010). Developing Personal Learning Networks for Open and Social Learning.
Emerging Technologies in Distance Education, 109-128.
Dabbagh, N., & Reo, R. (2011). Tracing the Roots and Learning Affordances of Social
Software. Web 2.0-Based E-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for, 1.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
76
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and
self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal
learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3-8.
Downes, S. (2006). Learning Networks and Collective Knowledge. Instructional
Technology Forum, available: Retrieved from:
http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper92/DownesPaper92.pdf.
Downes, S. (2007). Learning networks in practice. Emerging Technologies for Learning, 2,
19-27. Retrieved from:
http://www.downes.ca/files/Learning_Networks_In_Practice.pdf.
Drexler, W. (2010). The networked student model for construction of personal learning
environments: Balancing teacher control and student autonomy. Australasian Journal
of Educational Technology. 26(3), 369-385.
Dron, J. (2007). Control and constraint in E-Learning: Choosing when to choose. Idea
Group Publishing.
Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2011). Learning, unlearning, and relearning: Using Web
2.0 technologies to support the development of lifelong learning skills. E-
Infrastructures and Technologies for Lifelong Learning: Next Generation
Environments, George D. Magoulas, ed.(Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2010), 46-52.
Garrison, D.R., Baynton, M. (1987). Beyond Independence in distance education: The
concept of control. The American journal of distance education, 1(3).
Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C., & Anderson, T.(1997). Analysis of a global online debate and
the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social building of
Journal of Literacy and Technology
77
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
17(4), 397–431.
Hillman, D.C.A., Willis, D.J., & Gunawardena, C.N. (1994). Learner–interface interaction
in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for
practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30–42.
Jenkins, Henry (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education
for the 21st century (Part two).Chicago: MacArthur Foundation.
Johnson, M., Liber, O. (2008). The personal learning environment and the human
condition: From theory to teaching practice. Interactive Learning Environments, 16,
3-15.
Jonassen, D.H., Reeves, T.C. (1995). Computers as cognitive tools: Learning with
technology, not from technology. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 6.2: 40-
73.
Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement Theory: A Framework for
Technology-Based Teaching and Learning. Educational technology, 38(5), 20-23.
Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the
past?. International Review of research in open and distance learning, 9(3).
Kirschner, P.A. (2002). Can we support CSCL? Educational, social and technological
affordances for learning. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we
support CSCL? (pp. 7-47). Heerlen, The Netherlands: Open University of the
Netherlands.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
78
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
McLoughlin C., & Lee, J.W. ( 2010). Web 2.0-based E-learning : applying social
informatics for tertiary teaching. Information Science Reference, 43-69.
Mejias, U. (2006). Teaching social software with social software. Innovate: Journal of
Online Education, 2(5).
Moore, M. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 3(2), 1–6.
Nelson, J., Angela C., & Clif, M. (2009). Transformation of Teaching and Learning.
TechTrends 53(5), 81.
O'Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0. Design patterns and business models for the next
generation of software. Retrieved from: http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-
web-20.html.
Pena-Lopez, I. (2012).Personal Learning Environments and the revolution of Vygotsky��s
Zone of Proximal Development. In
ICTlogy, #107, Barcelona: ICTlogy.
Rahimi, E., Van den Berg, J. & Veen, W. (2013a). A framework for designing enhanced
learning activities in web2.0-based Personal Learning Environments. In Proceedings
of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and
Telecommunications 2013, p. 2222-2231. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Rahimi, E., Van den Berg, J., Veen, W. (2013b). Investigating teachers�� perception about the
educational benefits of Web 2.0 personal learning environments. eLearning Papers, 35.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and
technology. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 97-115.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
79
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from:
www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Valtonen, T., Hacklin, S., Dillon, P., Vesisenaho, M., Kukkonen, J., & Hietanen, A. (2012).
Perspectives on personal learning environments held by vocational students.
Computers & Education, 58(2), 732-739.
Väljataga, T., & Laanpere, M. (2010). Learner control and personal learning environment: a
challenge for instructional design. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(3), 277-
291.
Veen, W., & Vrakking, B. (2006). Homo Zappiens: growing up in a digital age. Continuum
International Publishing Group.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, S., Liber, O., Johnson, M., Beauvoir, P., Sharples, P., & Milligan, C. (2009).
Personal Learning Environments: Challenging the dominant design of educational
systems. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society-English Version, 3(2).
Journal of Literacy and Technology
80
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
The Problem of Learner Control in Networked Personal Learning
Environments
Paul Bouchard, Ph. D.
Professor, adult education
Concordia University
1455 de Maisonneuve blvd. West
Montreal Qc
CANADA
H3G 1M8
paulbou32@gmail.com
Journal of Literacy and Technology
81
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine the ramifications of networked learning as it
relates to the learners' agency in the presence of a new learning environment. Not only has
learning become transformed through the use of social ICTs, the learner is now placed at the
very centre of the act of learning, to the point where it is possible to question the continued
role of teachers or indeed of learning institutions in general. The question of learner
autonomy has been the object of empirical research from the 1970's to the present. This paper
argues that there is a need for further research that takes into account the features of personal
learning environments, namely learner control, self-directed learning, the distribution of
power in networked-based communication systems, and some intrinsic characteristics of
web-based learning that require an increased awareness on the part of the learners. One goal
of this paper is to contribute to a framework for conducting such research.
Freedom to learn
With the emergence of peer-to-peer networking and many-to-many publishing, there
is a renewed interest in forms of learning that are not bound by the traditional controls of
educational institutions. Learning materials, tools and interactivity can now be accessed
readily and freely on the web, to the point where the question appears quite unavoidable as to
the continued relevancy of structured learning environments such as classrooms and
programmed instructional materials in the age of social computing. The many features of
what has been variously called "Web 2.0", "P2P communication", or "social networking",
naturally point to an alternative to programmed instruction, namely, participation in a
collectively generated learning process that is facilitated by network interactivity.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
82
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
The notion of freedom from educational institutions has intrigued educators not only
since the appearance of web technologies, but also for some time earlier. From Socrates��
notion of ��self-learning��, to Illich's famous plea in 1971 for "deschooling society", and to
today��s yearly proceedings of the International Symposium on Self-Directed Learning, the
literature is replete with references to learner autonomy and learner self-direction, which are
typically promoted as opportunities for adults to exercise their natural capacity for
independent learning without the cumbersome interference of formal institutions. Here is a
telling quote from Jean-Jacques Rousseau��s
Émile:
��There is only one man who gets his own way – he who can get it single-
handed. Therefore freedom, and not power, is the greatest good. This is my
fundamental maxim ��and all the rules of education spring from it.��
Rousseau, 1762: 1972, p. 48
The new web connectivity evokes a world where learners are free to seek and build
knowledge unconstrained by the traditional gatekeepers, while losing nothing in the trade-off
in terms of access to text, media, or people. This shift does not represent a noticeable change
in the types or the quality of resources that are available for learning, any more that it can be
said to provide anything different from the relation of learners with 'knowledgeable others' as
a universally recognized means of learning. What is different in the networked environment
is that the almost infinite range of possibilities for retrieval and interaction gives learners
unprecedented control over the objects of their learning, and the means through which to
achieve it. If it is to mean anything at all in the end, the notion of
Personal Learning
Environment (PLE) is about allowing learners to take control of their own learning.
Learner control
Journal of Literacy and Technology
83
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Although it might sound self-explanatory, we still might ask, what does one gain
control
over, after one has established control of one's learning? In other words, what are the
unproductive features of pre-network types of learning that can be circumvented thanks to the
newly accessible, self-determined learning environment?
The notion of self-directed learning emerged as a central area of research in the 1970��s
through the 1990��s in North American literature, and subsequently receded into reduced
visibility. Today however, there is a renewed interest in the concept, in the context of
accessibility of knowledge for all. In the interest of continuity, it seems relevant to briefly
review the main conceptual developments in research surrounding SDL. In 1967, Allen
Tough, a Canadian scholar, published a condensed version of his doctoral dissertation written
two years earlier, which found that almost 100% of adults experienced at least one self-
directed learning episode in any given year. This publication could be said to have been the
launch of the SDL revolution. The same year as Tough was preparing his thesis, however, a
survey by Johnstone and Rivera (1965) pointed out that 7.9% of some 1 800 respondents in
the U. S had ��participated in independent study of any type�� (p. 34). The discrepancy is
explained by the fact that Tough admitted to have ��helped�� his respondents to remember
learning events (��the interviewer assisted their memory��). Apparently, after being informed
of some 26 different ��types�� of learning projects, respondents answered the question quite
differently. It is evident here that the importance of SDL depends to a large extent on the
definition one gives to the expression ��learning event��. In reverse fashion, the notion of
��learning event�� can be said to have been somewhat re-defined after the emergence of SDL
as a viable representation of learning.
SDL as process
Journal of Literacy and Technology
84
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
A few years earlier, Cyril Houle (1961) had prepared the set with his notion that not
all adult learning presented a similar profile. According to Houle, adults varied in their
approach to learning as being either goal-oriented (learning for a subsequent purpose),
learning-oriented (deriving pleasure from simple curiosity), activity-oriented (learning as a
social activity with others). However, Tough readily admitted that the only learning he
considered important was determined by the benefits learners could derive from learning
(goal-oriented). This has been pointed out as a weakness of Tough��s framework by critics
such as Bonham (1992, pp. 48-54). But Tough remained convinced that deliberate learning
should remain the central concern.
��Man (sic), according to this view, can be active, energetic, free, and
aware. He often chooses his goals, direction, and behavior; he is not
always pushed and pulled by his environment and by unconscious inner
forces��.
Tough, 1979, p. 45
Furthermore, Tough adhered more or less stringently to a linear process of learning that is
similar to other types of programmed learning. For example he described the self-directed
learning project��s ��stages�� as being:
1.
Decide on a learning goal
2.
Determine a learning sequence and a learning schedule
3.
Secure the physical and financial resources to pursue the learning project
4.
Select a suitable place to learn
Journal of Literacy and Technology
85
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
5.
Select resources and materials
6.
Find appropriate resource persons
7.
Resolve motivation issues
8.
Overcome learning difficulties
9.
Minimize self-doubt
10.
Set subsequent learning goals at the end of a learning sequence
It is quite evident that Tough establishes a strong parallel between the ��process�� of
SDL and the ��process�� of learning-as-the-result-of-teaching, such as routinely found in
formal or managed learning environments. The traditional notions of learning goal, resources,
learning effort and subsequent assessment are more or less transposed from traditional
pedagogy to learner-directed projects. A veritable avalanche of writings followed. The
literature of that period accounts for self-directed learning episodes among various groups
such as physicians (Fox & West, 1983); students (Johnstone et al., 1965); illiterate villagers
(Kondani, 1982); gifted children (Okabayashi et al., 1984); inventors (Cavaliere, 1988); the
elderly (Curry, 1983); immigrants (Diaz, 1988); children (Eisenman, 1988); fire-fighters
(Clark, 1988); aviators (Torbert, 1988). SDL projects were described in any imaginable
context involving nurses, administrators, priests, jazz musicians, etc. All of these studies used
a framework similar to the one proposed by Tough, namely that self-directed learning is a
process that can be accurately described and analyzed over time as a
sequential series of
events.
SDL as personality
Journal of Literacy and Technology
86
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
During that same period, Lucy Guglielmino (1977) was working on a model of
individuals�� ��measurable�� propensity towards self-direction in learning. After conducting a
Delphi study among experts in the field (including the likes of Allen Tough, Cyril Houle and
Malcolm Knowles), Guglielmino arrived at a series of characteristics that defined the self-
directed learner. By emphasising the
individual learner rather than the learning
project, she
derived a multi-dimensional model that could be assessed through the Self-directed learning
Readiness Scale (SDLRS). That instrument became the standard for a large number of
studies. In 1989, Cesljarevic had already counted 47 major reports that used the SDLRS as
their central instrument, and in 1990, Guglielmino herself estimated that the instrument had
been used among 4596 subjects. In order to better understand learners, the SDLRS was used
to establish correlations between readiness for self-direction and numerous other variables.
For instance, Sabbaghian (1979) established a positive correlation between SDL and self-
perception. Torrance and Mourad (1978) found that self-directed learners have a marked
propensity for ��right-hemisphere�� tasks, such as creativity, analogy, and problem solving.
Overall, according to Guglielmino��s view, not all persons exhibit the same predisposition for
self-direction in learning, just as they differ in other psychological abilities such as creativity,
problem-resolution, mathematical reasoning, etc. We could readily say that in this
perspective,
all persons are self-directed learners, although to varying degrees. The plausible
corollary here is that self-directed learners are self-directed
because of their specific
personality characteristics.
This view did not persist without meeting with some controversy. For instance, Field
(1989) argued rather convincingly that the SDLRS was semantically and statistically based
on constructs that differed from self-direction in learning (i.e. that it actually measured
disposition towards learning in general, not self-direction in particular). The American
Journal of Literacy and Technology
87
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
periodical, Adult Education Quarterly, became the theatre of fierce and passionate debate.
Huey Long (Guglielmino��s academic advisor at U. Georgia) accused Field��s study ��nit-
picking�� while Guglielmino herself argued that Field��s study was ��replete with errors�� and
McCune insisted that the Field study was based on ��inadequate observations�� (in Bonham,
1991). Finally, it appears that Bonham (1991) got the last word when by finally objecting to
the vagueness of the concept, self-direction, in Guglielmino��s work. Nevertheless, the
SDLRS is still being used today by researchers in adult education, and the notion of self-
direction as a personality trait is still very much alive. For some reviews of empirical results
using the SDLRS and other instruments, see Salazar et al. (2012); Delahaye et al. (2000); and
McCune (1988).
SDL as environment
It was George Spear and Donald Mocker (1984) who introduced the notion of SDL as
an environmentally-determined phenomenon. While Tough and Guglielmino had both
independently confirmed that self-directed learners have the will and capacity for carrying
out personal learning projects, Spear and Mocker pointed out that this was often not the case
at all. Their research revealed that learners were influenced by their surrounding
circumstances much more than by their ��determination�� or their ��inner predisposition��.
Indeed, respondents to Spear and Mocker��s research declared that they had not planned any
specific tasks or sequence in their learning:
��Self-directed learners, rather than pre-planning their learning
projects, tend to select a course from limited alternatives which
occur fortuitously in their environment.��
Spear & Mocker, 1984, p. 4
Journal of Literacy and Technology
88
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
In this light, the 10 learning tasks imagined by Tough appear to be foreign to the self-
directed learning projects at least when they are described by the learners themselves. Noting
that in general, authors suppose that all learning projects involve a series of indispensable
steps, but that learners themselves do not seem to be aware of these steps, Spear and Mocker
shed some doubt on the linear character that theorists would impose on all types of learning,
and particularly self-directed learning. The authors cite Kurt Lewin��s ��field theory�� to explain
how environmental factors can influence self-directed learning episodes. Tough himself had
admitted that the learning ��steps�� could remain outside the awareness of learners, but Spear
and Mocker argue, on the contrary, that such a linear learning process can only occur within
the confines of formal learning situations. Indeed, planned learning supposes that the learner
already has some mastery of the contents to be learned. Furthermore, the task of planning a
learning sequence is a rather specialized task for which a learner in the natural setting is not
likely to be prepared. Spear and Mocker concluded that it is not reasonable to assume that
self-directed learning projects can be planned in a similar way as formal learning projects.
Personal commitment to learn
As we can see, the notion of learner-control has been the object of some discussion in
the literature, and has generally implied the possibility for individuals to exercise choices,
beginning of course with the choice of whether to learn anything at all in the first place (Chu
& Tsai, 2009; Long, 1993; Candy, 1991). This is best understood as the opposite of some
forms of "other-directed" learning such as mandatory schooling, or of some instances of
workplace learning, where people have no choice at all about whether to learn, or indeed
what to learn. So, the first area where learners may exercise control over their learning (or be
Journal of Literacy and Technology
89
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
inhibited from doing so) lies in their option to initiate and pursue learning, or to choose to do
something else instead.
The personal commitment to learning precedes other aspects of the knowledge
building process and is contingent on psychological and contextual variables such as
readiness and incentive. This has been called the "conative" dimension of learner control
(Ponton et al., 2005; Bouchard, 2009; Kop & Bouchard, 2011). However, even a cursory
incursion into the notion of needs assessment reveals that this important step cannot be left
entirely to chance, and that some measure of sophistication must be applied in order to
differentiate, for instance, between "perceived" learning needs and "prescribed" needs -
neither type being in itself sufficient to mandate enlightened choices - or between levels of
behavioural, cognitive or attitudinal gains that are to be expected as outcomes of the learning
process. Even in a "goal-free" learning environment such as advocated by Zheng (2010), it is
still advisable for any self-regulated learning mechanism to remain embedded in the
contingencies of real life and to include the periodic monitoring of one's progression as it
relates to more holistic, non-learning aspects of individual development. The decision to learn
should belong, before and above all else, to the learner. If it does not liberate us from the
'obligation' to learn, then the notion of PLE implicitly reinforces the hegemonic view of
humans as permanent,
de facto learners-in-deficit. This notion has been used to describe
unreasonable expectations, for example by employers, that their workers be permanently
engaged in a catch-up race with new and emerging knowledge.
The second area of possible learner-control lies in the ability to influence the
procedures or ��algorithms�� of the learning process itself (Kop & Bouchard, 2011). The
learning process is the result of many decisions and choices, whether they are exercised by a
Journal of Literacy and Technology
90
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
teacher in a traditional classroom, or by a learner in a self-directed environment. Not only are
we required to decide
whether to learn, and
what to learn, we must also determine
how the
learning can unfold. Some examples of algorithmic choices that must be made include
determining the pace of learning (how fast), the sequence of learning events (in what order),
the goal structure, the nature and frequency of the follow-up, the overall validation process,
etc. But perhaps the most important of these procedural decisions is choosing the materials
that will be used for the purpose of building knowledge. Instructors and content designers
normally consider this a central aspect of their job, for it is their responsibility as experts to
direct students to the most appropriate text, medium or person while implicitly circumventing
second-rate sources and outright charlatans. Interestingly, and central to our discussion of
PLE��s and learner autonomy, selection of resources is also the area where learners in
programmed environments typically exercise the
least control over their learning. This aspect
of learner-control is surely the one where web-based learning is likely to make the largest
difference, since it provides the possibility for learners to directly access a quasi-infinite
range of learning resources, including knowledgeable others. Learners are no longer
dependent on institutional authorities to direct them to appropriate materials and persons, and
they can search for up-to-date information on the web, as well as interact with other learners
and specialists who volunteer their expertise on the network. This is truly a revolutionary
aspect of web-based PLE's and the one that offers the greatest promise for an Illichian
'liberation' communities of learners. However, since the problem of monitoring the quality
and relevance of resources can now occur in the absence of a content expert, this means that
the learner is now in charge of this complex task. And this predicament is exacerbated by the
very nature of the web, beginning with the quantum explosion in the number of accessible
sources that it makes accessible.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
91
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
A web of �� deception?
Very early in the development of the world-wide web, critics have warned against the
unreliability of information that is not subjected to the habitual processes of validation. There
is still much talk about the 'Babel' of information overload on the web (Castells, 2011;
Benkler, 2007), and there are lingering qualms that the spontaneous assault on the public
sphere by the multitude can only lead to the dilution of defined standards of 'quality' - not to
mention in more extreme cases, to suspicions of conspiracy:
"... these excesses (overabundance of information, etc.) produce a flattening of
distinctions between authorized and unauthorized, official and covert, expert
and amateur, true and false that seems to threaten reason, democracy, and the
bounded stability of the nation."
Dean, 2000, p. 63
The fears expressed against the democratization of the web are reminiscent of the
tensions between mass culture and so-called ��high�� culture that emerged in tandem with
technologies such as the newspaper, television and the radio, and which prompted one author
in the 1950��s to cynically observe that, ��mass culture is very, very democratic: it absolutely
refuses to discriminate against, or between, anything or anybody�� (MacDonald, 1957, in
Strinati, 2004, p.14). Today, the limitation of the Web as an unfiltered information source
cannot be shrugged off with mere caginess. One co-designer of the application Twitter, Evan
Williams, readily admits that "We must absolutely find a way to reduce noise-to-signal ratio
on the web", while analyst Danah Boyd, addressing the interactive web's potential for
disinformation, asserts that, "We should take care to create a future that we actually want to
live in" (Boyd, 2010).
Journal of Literacy and Technology
92
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
The problem of ambiguous reliability is compounded by two specific properties of
networks. First, the so-called ��Power Law�� explains that the popularity (or visibility) of a
URL depends basically on the number of links previously directed to it by others, regardless
of its own inherent value. This mathematical occurrence knows no moral or scientific
justification, and research confirms that people tend to prefer content that is popular among
friends and contacts above all other criteria of credibility or quality (Pegrum, 2011; British
Library, 2008; Goodfellow and Lea, 2007). This has raised concerns that some kind of ��herd
mentality�� is becoming the main determinant of hierarchy on the network. Without directly
arguing that there is no merit in word-of-mouth popularization, we should at least take stock
of the fact that other, more credible alternatives often take second place in social network
environments, to the point that they matter very little or not at all. So, we must at the very
least ask: is peer judgment a feature of an ��ideal�� learning environment? And this is without
mentioning ��non-peers�� dislocated from the network, rendered invisible for their non-
networkedness. What about them?
The second characteristic that can devalue network content is the propagation of
customized search and filtering algorithms that inspired Shirky (2010) to talk of the ��death of
ontology��. Traditionally, researchers, scholars and students have depended on classification
structures such as the Dewey decimal system or the Library of Congress cataloguing scheme
that arrange subjects according to what they
are, or more precisely, according to meanings
assigned by those systems themselves. Over time, these methods have proven invaluable to
locate sources in the physically defined spaces of library stacks. In the non-physically
delineated environment of the web, similar divisions have been found too restrictive because
they don��t allow what the web does best: to link together objects and persons that are related
to each other idiosyncratically, rather than ontologically. In the network, it is not considered
Journal of Literacy and Technology
93
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
helpful to impose an ��outside�� logic to classification, so like in all things networked, the
solution lies in spontaneous generation. The result has been to capitalize on individuals��
capacity to generate their own webs of links, using their own personal logic.
While some might say that unlimited links attached to unlimited content provide a
flexible and intuitive way to associate ideas, it could also be argued that such a non-structure
creates a vacuum which can (and will) be filled with market-generated systems that depend
on criteria of their own, sometimes with contrary results. For example ��tagging�� one��s public
content allows the gregarious assembly of similar-minded taggers. Replacing taxonomy with
��folksonomy�� seems innocuous enough and can probably be acclaimed as one of those so-
called ��liberating�� developments in web ontology. On the other hand, some practices are much
less ingenuous in their purpose, such as the fast-growing industry of assigning consumer
characteristics to individual users in order to ��personalize�� their search results. There is
evidence of a disturbing tendency among knowledge brokers to allocate specific algorithms
to specific information depending on ��who is asking��. Most well-known search engine
designers readily admit that personalizing searches is one of their development priorities
(Google News, 2008). In a somewhat frightful way, the difficult question of establishing
relationships between things according to their ��nature�� is subjected to laws of commerce
even before entering the world of ideas. Again we should ask, is this an ideal feature of a
learning environment?
The corollary to profiling our web searches according to our inquiry patterns is to do
the opposite, i. e. to assume that everybody is searching for the same thing, regardless of goal
or purpose. To illustrate this, this author once tried to reproduce a biographical search that a
student did about a well-known educational theorist, but which in my opinion still lacked
Journal of Literacy and Technology
94
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
some essential information. Doing my own web search, I managed to come up with about the
same information as the student, which stated publications and things like ��Dr.
X is professor
of adult education at University ��
Y��, etc., but I was never able to ascertain what I already
knew as a fact: this man had died more than 12 years earlier. So, we might ask: How is
important information found, but essential data concealed? In the words of Sunstein (2006),
��Why is Google so good at finding what a particular researcher wants? The
answer is that it knows what most researchers want, and most people want what
most people want.��
Sunstein, 2006, p. 23
The uneasy commons
In the end, and heedless to these cautionary observations, the web is destined to grow
and the problem of searching it will not become any simpler (Selwyn, 2010). Ironically, we
have rapidly come to a point where 'too much choice' is an impediment to learning, just like
'not-enough choice' used to be. One solution to the over-abundance of available information
lies in the creation of web 'filters' that will only allow desirable information to seep into our
environment. Filters vary in nature and effectiveness from sophisticated search protocols to
self-proclaimed bloggers who make decisions for us about the flow of information that will
ultimately reach our screen. Of course, given the monumental task of filtering the web, we
will inevitably need to filter even the filters themselves in order to aggregate a manageable
mass of data. The problem is, whom will we entrust our filtering to? Information filtering is
reminiscent of traditional reviews of literature or annotated bibliographies that are rooted in
the academic tradition, where a knowledgeable reader highlights the main points of a
complex issue, thereby saving us the effort of sifting through all the materials ourselves. In
Journal of Literacy and Technology
95
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
fact, a vast amount of 'aggregated' knowledge distributed on the web is quoted from the
works of professional academics, philosophers, sociologists and researchers whose credibility
is recognized through traditional, pre-internet kinds of filters – back when the cost of
publishing was a safeguard against the threat of infinite garbage. In a cyberworld filled with
dubious claims to accuracy, proven intellectuals are manifestly still considered good arbiters
for separating the believable from the bogus.
Interestingly enough however, a majority of professional academics are prevented
from contributing freely to today's flowing exchanges on the web because an important part
of their work is housed in proprietary databases. This is in direct opposition to the network
trend of the 'creative commons' where participants are invited to contribute their work
liberally without other compensation than heightened reputation or popularity. Indeed, there
is growing confidence in the literature that not-for-profit contributions to networked
knowledge represent an irreversible trend that will soon become a serious alternative to
commercially protected content (for an in-depth discussion of this issue, see Benkler, 2007).
The optimistic prediction that the networked commons will eventually counterbalance
proprietary interests has been explained in at least three ways. First, because the network
deals with digital materials that can be reproduced infinitely at no cost, there seems to be no
point in 'imposing artificial scarcity' on them in the first place (Mejias, 2009, p.7). Second,
there is a perception that an inherent set of human 'motivations' such as vanity and altruism
will continue to inspire people to contribute freely to networks (Shirky, 2008). And third, that
there are sufficient secondary economic spin-offs to be derived from web notoriety to ensure
a continued supply from web contributors. Some even predict that these ��non-economic��
motives of contributing to open source content represent an irreversible trend.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
96
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
"As the material barriers that ultimately drove much of our information
environment to be funneled through the proprietary, market-based strategies
are removed, these basic nonmarket, non proprietary, motivations and
organizational forms should in principle become even more important to the
information production system."
Benkler, 2007, p. 16
The reality however is that the jury is still out over who will win the tug-of-war for network
accessibility. On the one hand, authors such as Benkler tell a story of exciting open-source
economics unleashed by the new connectivity; on the other hand, Lanier (2010) warns against
the proliferation of non-proprietary commodities, arguing that the checks and balances of the
for-profit market (as opposed to open-source kinds of markets) are necessary in order to weed
out irrelevant contributions to discourse and structure. The argument is once again, ownership
versus credibility. While we sit and talk about the promises of open-source access and quietly
anticipate the empowerment of the information commons, governments and global
corporations are negotiating worldwide agreements designed, precisely, to thwart the
expansion of access through connectivity. In her book,
Who owns academic work?,
intellectual-property lawyer Corrine McSherry (2001) summarizes the nature of the crisis
brought about by the ��liberation�� of knowledge and creativity in interactive networks:
��When documents can be copied and circulated worldwide with a few clicks of
a mouse, and multiple forms of media (textual, visual, musical) can be digitized
and recombined so that all traces of ��originary�� sources are practically
dissolved, it is generally difficult to ensure that persons (both corporate and
��natural��) are compensated in their investments. Hence the development of
Journal of Literacy and Technology
97
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
legislation, legal doctrines and technologies designed to track and limit the
circulation of digitized information and thereby to contain the ��crisis��
McSherry, 2001, p. 26
Obviously, a purely commons-bound PLE is not feasible at this time, at least if it is to include
access to academic writing, among other things. The struggle for control over what is and is
not accessible to the commons shows no sign of slowing down in the near future. Currently,
all eyes are turned to the future digitalization of existing books as it becomes evident that
technology allows the storage of data in large enough quantities to imagine that all books
ever written could be housed in a single database. The question is, who will ��own�� and
��distribute�� this data? By applying market logic to digital phenomena, we are accepting the
possibility of handing over a very large chunk of our culture to some overarching corporate
entities, and then buying it back from them for use in our Personal Learning Environments.
Even without thinking about issues of possible corruption of access or censorship, this does
not make good economic sense.
Network snake oil
Networks have changed our way of thinking about many things, from the workings of
the globalized economy to the mathematics of human relations. Network theory is a trendy
thing and it fills us with fascination at every turn. As would be expected, the world of
education has been no exception and some authors have been tempted to revisit basic notions
such as the nature of learning, and the nature of knowledge itself in light of recent network
developments. The results are not without appeal and we can predict that after the dust
settles, network learning theories will at least contribute a substantial footnote to tomorrow��s
textbooks. The danger however with force-matching psychological and epistemological
Journal of Literacy and Technology
98
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
explanations to fashionable network theory is that people might be misled to believe some
things about learning networks and Personal Learning Environments that they simply cannot
deliver. For instance, in network-based learning theory, there is a marked tendency to
'discover' futuristic learner characteristics that are either already explained by previous
learning theories, or that are contrary to rational sense. Consider for example the connectivist
contention that because of its networked genesis, conceptualisation can no longer be seen as
the acquisition of a localized mental representation, but rather as a fluid and changing
association:
��(...) the concept 'Paris' is a loose association of a whole bunch of different
things, and hence the concept 'Paris' exists in no particular place in our minds,
but rather, is scattered throughout our minds.��
Downes, 2010, p. 4
and further,
��
(...) each person is experiencing a mental state that is at best seen as an
approximation of what it is that is being said in words or experienced in
nature.��
Downes, 2010, p. 9
Beyond its clear departure from medieval phrenology (the study of cranial bumps),
the scatter-mind model seems to be another way of saying that concrete concepts cannot be
reduced to a set of defining features (e.g. a dog has a tail and four legs), but are more usefully
described as the formation of tentative "prototypes" (e.g. a dog with three legs is still a dog)
which people shape and re-shape constantly, sometimes as the result of human interaction and
Journal of Literacy and Technology
99
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
sometimes not. Such theories of concept formation have been around for many years,
alternatively called 'prototype' or 'parallel-distributed' learning theories (Ormrod, 2008 or any
standard textbook). Perhaps the novelty here resides in the fact that complex mental
representations can now be referred to as 'networks' of mental activity, in the same way that
the web itself has been compared to the human brain, as they are both examples of 'networks'.
The isomorphic transposition of properties from one instance of network (e.g. the web) to
another (the brain), replays a familiar occurrence in technological innovation – from the
invention of the telegraph to the spread of personal computers – where new technologies have
been the subliminal background for ��explaining�� how the human mind works (Friesen, 2009).
One day, we are wired as 2-way feedback loops, and the next our thoughts are portrayed as
tentacular, self-replicating rhizomes. Here the question is, did the telegraph actually
make us
into unthinking behavioral machines? And will social computing
make us into connected
thinkers in a heretofore undiscovered way?
So this question remains, at least for the sake of a final argument on the issue: does
networked learning facilitate in any way my ability to conceptualize abstract material in a
more flexible, socially responsive manner, or is this ability a function of cognitive processes
entirely unrelated to the particulars of my current learning (networked) 'environment'?
Developmental psychologists in the past have opted for the second explanation. They have
argued that all individuals undergo a series of ��epistemic shifts�� as a result of normal
cognitive development, and that the later stages of cognitive maturity are characterized by the
ability to hold concepts that are fluid and changing, rather than fixed and rigid (Perry, 1970;
Baxter-Magolda, 1992). In this light, to ascribe determinants of human cognitive
development to some aspect of virtual connectivity is somewhat misleading.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
100
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
If the network allows us to question the nature of learning, so it appears also to
redefine the nature of knowing. Web theorists have hinted at a possible epistemological shift
towards some unknown type of ��networked knowledge�� (Siemens, 2008; 2006). The main
feature of this ��way of knowing�� again seems to be based on the fluid and changing nature of
connected reality, simply by virtue of its being shared and inevitably confronted with the
alternate views of others. Hence, knowledge is continually being re-shaped in the network:
��(...) the world of expert, clearly-defined, and well-organized knowledge formed
by ancient philosophers and deciphered by subsequent thinkers, has today given
way to continual flux.��
Siemens, 2008, p. 5
Furthermore, this seemingly harmless observation has led some to believe that knowledge
is
the network:
��(�� knowledge) consists of a network of connections formed from experience
and interactions with a knowing community.��
Downes, 2010, p. 1
The rise of the networked age has triggered a torrent of ideas about the features of
information networks, such as: the opportunities of quasi-infinite connectivity; the 'natural'
organizing principles of networks; the explosion of cost-free production and reproduction; the
growing market for non-proprietary services and products; the relativization of meaning in an
'economy of attention' (Lanham, 2006; Shirky, 2010). We are witnessing a somewhat frenzied
effort to characterize just about anything with the newfound properties of networks - be they
mathematical, economic, social or psychological. The movement is so entrenched in our
Journal of Literacy and Technology
101
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
times that it was no surprise to hear in the popular movie Avatar (2010) a bemused and
glassy-eyed Sigourney Weaver affirm: ��... But don't you get it? This whole planet is a...
network��. The tendency is reminiscent of the 'theory of general systems' initiated by Von
Bertalanffy (1969) which briefly became the pet premise of the 'systems thinking' movement,
but which quickly fizzed out when, in the words of Bertalanffy himself, ��disappointment of
over-extended expectations occurred�� (p. 23). Of course we can look at web connectivity as a
quantum leap from previous forms of communication in its capacity to enable more
connections, faster. But the fixation of explaining too many things in terms of network theory
does a disservice to learners and to potential users of designed PLE's, simply because it
couches the issues of access to learning in arcane and incorrect reasoning.
Conclusion
Network connectivity has given us a world of intricate, rapid re-articulations of
information and meaning, while at the same time providing us with the technical
means to actually keep up with it. By considering the network as part of our learning
environment, we realize that the so-called unlimited access to knowledge is really a
backdrop for human
purpose and that it is only through the careful realization of that
purpose that we can create something of value. There is nothing inherently
deterministic in linking a quasi-infinite number of nodes within an unmonitored
network where anything can happen, and indeed it does. Connectivity not only implies
the possibility of access, it also changes the nature of our relations with ideas and
persons. We are confronted with questions about what it means to learn and to know, in
ways that are not merely hypothetical or subject to theoretical speculation, but in ways
that are very real to each of us, personally.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
102
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Scientists and thinkers in all domains have been challenged to explain the
emergent relationships uncovered by connectivity. They made us question some
notions that we had considered more or less self-evident in our previous, less
complicated culture. But the fact is, there are no extraneous explanations for learning
and knowing that are disconnected from our own, intimate selves. In the end, each of
us is responsible for defining what is real, what is true, what makes sense. This is a
rather profound realization that networked learning makes not only possible, but also
necessary – or more precisely, unavoidable.
The intention in pointing out some contradictions and inconsistencies in
network related theories is not to discredit the efforts of those who have sought light in
this tunnel. Rather, it is to reinforce the notion of the epistemic self seeking equilibrium
in a complex world of interconnected realities. Networked connectivity does not
automatically make up new ways of learning, anymore than it automatically reveals
new ways of knowing. What it does however is to force us as learners and knowledge
seekers to ask what it is that we are looking for, and why. These two fundamental
questions – the meaning of learning and the purpose of knowing – have been the focus
of much serious effort from scholars and intellectuals throughout human history. The
problem we face today is that it is no longer possible to engage in a learning journey
without being required to make some judgements about these questions for ourselves.
In his book
Fear of Knowledge, Boghossian (2007) reminds us that there are different
ways to test the validity of so-called ��true�� statements and that the methods used can
vary considerably in reliability and consistency. In an open environment such as the
web, learners are required to make such estimates on a regular basis, and therefore are
called upon to exercise some rather sophisticated judgement calls. The problem is
Journal of Literacy and Technology
103
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
compounded if we consider that such judgements of validity are destined to remain
forever tentative if they are to be epistemologically acceptable. According to standard
texts in the philosophy of science (e.g. Cover & Curd, 1998), there is a necessary string
of inference to be followed from testing the validity of an assertion to demonstrating its
��falisifiability��. This basic epistemological ��fact�� requires explanations too complex to
be included here, which is precisely why the question is so urgent: How can learners be
prepared to make such strings of inference, and make them accurately?
The exercise of learner-control requires an understanding of the processes and
outcomes of the learning cycle, along with a well-articulated view of one��s own
expectations in knowledge-building and connectivity. In complex networked learning
environments, we must devise ways to reduce our vulnerability as learners and to build
our capacity to use a wide range of communicative tools. In this way, we may develop
the capacity for creative interaction that is necessary for structuring a new
understanding of the world.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
104
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
References
Baxter-Magolda, M. B. (1992).
Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns
in students�� intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Benkler, Y. (2007).
The Wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and
freedoms. Yale University Press.
Bertalanffy, L. V. (1969).
General systems theory: Foundations, development, applications.
New York: G. Braziller.
Boghossian, P. (2007).
Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Bouchard, P. (2009).
Some factors to consider when Designing Semi-autonomous Learning
Environments. European Journal of e-learning, Volume 7, (2), 93-100.
Boyd, D. (2010). Speech to the South by Southwest - SxSW - conference in Austin Texas,
March 2010.
British Library and JISC (2008).
Information behaviour of the researcher of the future. 11
January 2008. Retrieved from: www.ucl.ac.uk/slais/research/ciber/downloads
Candy, P. (1991).
Self-direction in learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and practice.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Castells, M. (2011).
Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cavaliere, L. A. (1988).
A case study of the self-directed learning processes and network
patterns utilized by the Wright brothers. Rutgers, N. J.: Dissertation Abstracts
International, 2894-a.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
105
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Cesljarevic, O. (1989).
Étude des liens entre les scores au SDLRS et le rendement
acad��mique d��adultes �� L��Universit�� Simon-Rodriguez (V��n��zuela). Doctoral project
presented to the School of Graduate Studies, Universit�� de Montr��al.
Chu, R. J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2009). Self-directed learning readiness, Internet self-efficacy
and preferences towards constructivist Internet-based learning environments among
higher-aged adults.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
25(5), 489-501.
Clark, B. A. (1989).
Comparison of self-directed learning readiness of five executives to the
norm and public managers. ERIC document ED327667.
Cover, J. A. & Curd, M (1998).
Philosophy of science: The central issues. New York:
Norton.
Curry, M. A. (1983).
The analysis of self-directed learning readiness characteristics in
older adults engaged in formal learning activities in two settings. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University.
Dean, J. (2000). "Webs of conspiracy", in A. Herman and T. Swiss (eds.), The World-wide
web and contemporary cultural conspiracy. New York: Routeledge, 61-76.
Delahaye , B., & Choy, S. (2000). "The Learning Preference Assessment (Self-Directed
Learning Readiness Scale)". In Maltby, J., Lewis, C. A., & Hill, A. (2000).
Commissioned reviews of 250 psychological tests. Edwin Mellen Press, Wales, U.K.
Diaz, P. C. (1988). Life satisfaction and learner self-direction as related to ethnicity and the
older adult. Ohio State University, unpublished doctoral dissertation. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 51-a.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
106
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Downes, S. (2010).
Learning networks and connective knowledge, in H. Hao Yang and S.
Chi-Yin Yuen (eds.) "Collective intelligence and E-Learning 2.0: Implications of
web-based communities and networking". Hershey PA: IGI Global, 1-26.
Eisenman, J. (1989).
Self-directed learning: A correlational study of fifth grade students,
their arents and teachers. University of Georgia, unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Field, L. (1989)
.An investigation into the structure, validity and reliability of Guglielmino��s
SDLRS. Adult Education Quarterly, 39 (3), 125-139.
Fox, R. & West, R. (1983).
Personality traits and perceived benefits associated with
different approaches of medical students to self-directed learnig projects. Paper
presented at the Adult Education Research Conference (AERC). Montreal.
Friesen, N. (2009). Re-thinking E-learning research: Foundations, methods, and practice.
New York: Peter Lang.
Goodfellow, R. and Lea, M. (2007).
Challenging e-learning in the university: A literacies
perspective. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open
University Press.
Google News (2008). Is Google perfect? Not always. Here are 10 flops.
http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/017202.html
Guglielmino, L. M. (1977).
Development of the self-direted readiness learning scale.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.
Houle, C. O. (1961).
The Inquiring mind. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Illich, I. (1971).
Deschooling society. Reprinted in 1978 by Marion Boyars, London.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
107
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Johnstone, J. W. C. & Rivera, R. J. (1965).
Volunteers for learning: A study of educational
pursuits of American adults. Chicago: Aldine Publications.
Kondani, K. (1982).
Analyse de projets autodidactiques d��adultes analphab��tes de
Kinshasa. Unpublished doctoral disssertation, Universit�� de Montr��al, Facult�� des
Sciences de l��Éducation.
Kop, R., & Bouchard, P. (2011). The role of adult educators in networked learning
environments. In M. Thomas (Ed.),
Digital education : opportunities for social
collaboration (1st ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lanham, R. A. (2006).
The economics of attention: Style and substance in the age of
information. The University of Chicago Press.
Lanier, J. (2010).
You are not a gadget : A manifesto. New York: Random House.
Long, H. B. (1993).
Emerging perspectives of self-directed learning. Research Center for
Professional and Continuing Education: University of Oklahoma.
McSherry, C. (2001).
Who Owns Academic Work? Battling for Control of Intellectual
Property. Harvard University Press.
McCune, S. K. (1988).
A meta-analytic study of adult self direction in learning: A review of
the research from 1977 to 1987 (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University,
1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 3237.
Mejias, U. (2009).
Peerless: The ethics of P2P network disassembly. Presented at the 4th
Inclusiva-net meeting: P2P Networks and Processes. Madrid, Spain.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
108
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Okayabashi, H. & Torrance, E. P. (1984).
Role of style of learning and thinking and self-
directed learning readiness in the achievement of gifted children. Journal of learning
disabilities, 17 (2).
Ormrod, J. E. (2008).
Human Learning. Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice
Hall.
Pegrum, M. (2011). Modified, multipied and remixed: Social media and digital literacies. In
M. Thomas (Ed.),
Digital education : opportunities for social collaboration (1st ed.).
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Perry, W. G. (1970).
Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years.
New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
Ponton, M., Derrick, G., Hall, M., Rhea, N. and Carr, P. (2005).
The Relationship Between
Self-Efficacy and Autonomous Learning: The Development of New Instrumentation.
The International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 2 (1).
Rousseau, J.-J. (1762: 1972).
Émile. London: Aldine House.
Sabbaghian, Z. (1979).
Adult self-directedness and self-concept: An exploration of
relationship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Iowa State University. ERIC
document 8000170.
Selwyn, Neil. (2010). Thew ��new�� connectivities of digital education. In M. Apple (Ed.),
The Routledge international handbook of the sociology of education. London, New
York: Routledge.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
109
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Salazar, T., Piksurcih, J., & Lacy, N. (2012).
The Relationship Between Self-Directed
Learning Readiness and Self-Regulation Skills in Entering Medical Students. Texas
Tech Health Sciences Center. Paul L. Foster School of Medicine.
Shirky, C. (2008).
Here comes Everybody.
The power of organizing without organizations.
New York: The Penguin Press.
Shirky, C. (2010).
Ontology is overrated: Categories, links and tags. Blogpost retrieved
April 6, 2010 from: http://www.shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html
Siemens (2008).
New structures and spaces of learning: The systemic impact of connective
knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning. Paper presented to: Encontro
Sobre Web 2.0. Braga, Portugal, October 10, 2008.
Siemens, G. (2006).
Knowing knowledge. Retrieved from: www.knowingknowledge.com.
Spear, G. E. & Mocker, D. W. (1984).
The organizing circumtance: Environmental
determinants in self-directed learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 35 (1), 1-10.
Strinati, D. (2004).
An introduction to theories of popular culture. Second edition. London:
Routledge.
Sunstein, C. R. (2006).
Infotopia: How many minds produce knowledge. Oxford University
Press.
Torbert, J. B. (1988).
Improving self-directed learning in the Phoenix Air Guard. ERIC
document ED294035.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
110
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Torrance, E. P. & Mourad, S. (1978).
Some creativity and style of learning and thinking
correlates of Guglielmino�� Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale. Psychological
reports, vol. 43, 1167-1171.
Tough, A. M. (1979)
Choosing to learn. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education (OISE).
Tough, A. M. (1967).
Learning without a teacher. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies
in Education (OISE).
Tough, A. M. (1965)
The teaching tasks performed by adult self-teachers. Unpublished
doctoral thesis, Chicago University, Ill.
Zheng, R. Z. (2010).
Designing dynamic learning environment for Web 2.0 application, in
H. Hao Yang and S. Chi-Yin Yuen (eds.)
Collective intelligence and E-Learning 2.0:
Implications of web-based communities and networking. Hershey PA: IGI Global,
61-76.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
111
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
A Concept to Bridge Personal Learning Environments: Including a
Generic Bookmarking Tool into a Social Learning Management Systems
Tobias Hölterhof, Dr. phil.,
Scientific Assistant with the Chair of Media Didactics and Knowledge Management
Learning Lab, University of Duisburg
tobias.hoelterhof@uni-duisburg-essen.de
Richard Heinen, M.A.,
Scientific Assistant with the Chair of Media Didactics and Knowledge Management
Learning Lab, University of Duisburg
richard.heinen@uni-duisburg-essen.de
Postal Address
Universität Duisburg Essen
Lehrstuhl f��r Mediendidaktik und Wissensmanagement
Forsthausweg 2 LC 022
47057 Duisburg
Journal of Literacy and Technology
112
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Abstract
This conceptual study investigates the ability to connect learners' Personal Learning
Environments (PLE) by a central permeable and social Learning Management System
(LMS). Within the exemplary scope of bookmarking tools as elements of learners�� PLE in
Higher Education (HE), the relevance of this conceptual idea is shown with reference to the
social bookmarking tool ��Edutags�� as well as to survey results about the heterogeneity and
use cases of bookmarking tools in distance learners's PLE. As the analysis shows the issue of
connecting PLEs – a metaphor which can be adopted from ��bridges�� in graph theory and
social network analyses – refers to a non-dominant and inconsistent design of an LMS.
Theoretical questions concerning the relation between personal and social, institutional and
private, consistent and heterogeneous are addressed. Both Drupal (Content Management
System) and OnlineCampus Next Generation (social Learning Management System) serve as
a framework for interfacing PLE and LMS.
Personal Learning Environments in higher education
Offering formal online learning opportunities at universities is often dependent on
institutional learning environments, frequently referred to as Learning Management System
(LMS). In recent years, an increased interest has emerged in the personalization of online
leaning processes. Most Higher Education (HE) institutions offer online learning
opportunities through LMS. However, these systems do not seem to facilitate the level of
personalisation and individualisation of learning required. In this context, the main question
addressed in this article is how formal learning scenarios can be designed so that the concept
of a Personal Learning Environment (PLE) is fostered as well.
Regarding the scientific discussion about Personal Learning Environments it appears
necessary to define PLE in more definite terms, since the spectrum of possible
Journal of Literacy and Technology
113
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
understandings ranges from technological platforms to pedagogical ideas, from learning
opportunities offered by institutions to informal opportunities opposing the integration in
educational institutions. Our central thesis is that PLE denotes at least a theoretical concept
fostering the learning environment as belonging to an individual. The relation between the
individual and the environment can be characterised in terms of ownership and control
(Buchem et al., 2011). In doing so, the person can own the environment in different manners.
Learner can own and control the data and functions of the environment in a technological
sense by deleting or expanding them. The data can also be owned by someone else while the
learner is the legal owner of the functions and the data of the environment. At least the
individual can feel the ownership and the control as a psychological aspect. Even though
granting ownership and control to the learner may be realised by a central environment from
a HE institution (Taraghi et al., 2009), the scientific discussion of PLE focuses on
heterogeneous and decentralised systems, claiming the benefit from the wide range of generic
tools on the web as quality, flexibility and pedagogical suitability (e.g. Weller, 2010). The
focus on personalisation and the learner as a pedagogical approach leads to a technological
implementation of learning environments as a framework of less dominant, open and
permeable systems with an inconsistent set of tools (Wilson 2009). The inconsistency of tools
means that the system is not restricted to a single tool per task, instead it is open to include
multiple tools for the same purpose. This diversity of tools is considered to meet the demands
of human individuality.
The personalisation of learning environments has to accompany learning as a social
process. The learner is integrated in a social context that is essential for the learning process.
So if one considers the heterogeneity of tools on the web as basis of a PLE, these tools
usually include social aspects. A PLE is not an isolated environment. A PLE is social at least
Journal of Literacy and Technology
114
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
in its different components: messaging and communication tools, collaborative editing tools,
weblogs and sharing tools (Attwell, 2007). As the social and the personal aspects may
represent two opposing poles of single dimension delimiting the concretion of PLE systems,
the institutional inclusion of a platform is a second dimension that specify different kinds of
PLE designs: a PLE can be a platform of an educational institution (e.g. Aresta 2012; Taraghi
2009) and it can be a non-institutional personal arrangement of independent tools (e.g.
Wilson, 2009).
From the perspective of a higher education institution these two dimensions are
essential for designing a system for technology-enhanced learning environment. A PLE as a
personal arrangement of generic social media tools depends on the capacity of these tools to
manage and determine the relationships between users. For example, Google+ and the
collaborative text editing tools Google Docs own a dedicated user management as well as the
note taking app Evernote, the social media platform Facebook and the synchronous
communication tool Skype. The learners have to connect each other on every chosen tool.
Building a group and especially building a formal learning context is a challenge and depends
on further arrangements of frameworks. One approach of enabling social relations in PLE is
to avoid generic social media tools. Mash-up, gadget or widgets are developed as components
of PLE sharing the same background structure and can be arranged in special portal sites.
According to this approach these arrangement portals are considered as a PLE. A widget-
based PLE serves the need of personalisation by offering functional learning objects that can
be reused, individually arranged, shared and created. An example for this approach is the
ROLE widget store combined with GRAASP as portal (Dahrendorf 2012)1. The portal can be
1
Another approach is the PLE design language LISL, that offers the possibility to use generic social
media tools as well but doesn��t face the mentioned problem with dedicated user management (Wild et al., 2008)
Journal of Literacy and Technology
115
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
hosted by an educational institution, serve as a central platform and build a unified formal
learning context. While the widget-based approach dissolves problems caused by the
heterogeneity of tools, widgets are simple applications like to-do-lists that hardly satisfy the
needs of higher educational institutions.
Another approach is the combining of generic tools through interfaces and APIs
(Wilson 2009). While this approach usually lacks a unified platform or portal, it benefits from
the quality and richness of generic social media tools. Some standards for interoperation
between generic tools already exist: rss-feeds and atom-feeds. Others need to be developed.
An example for this kind of PLE is gRSShopper (Downes 2010).
Technology-enhanced learning in the context of higher educational institutions
somehow depends on central platforms, especially for the needs of online study programs
(Hölterhof et al., 2012). Instead of building a Learning Management System as a dominant
system and consistent set of tools (Wilson, 2009), the discussion about PLE and LMS should
consider the design of open and permeable systems including a wide (and maybe
inconsistent) range of generic tools. A strategy for integrating the demands of formal and
institutional study programs in a learner��s own Personal Learning Environment is through the
implementation of ��social hubs��: a social hub connects the PLEs of different learners,
including heterogeneous collaboration and learning tools as well as different devices, with the
members of formal groups representing modules and courses of study programs (Hölterhof,
Nattland & Kerres, 2012). The strategy is based on the Social Learning Management System
(SLMS) instead of a common Learning Management System (Kerres, Hölterhof & Nattland,
2011).
The ��Online Campus Next Generation�� is a Social Learning Management System
used for technology-enhanced learning in the online master programs ��Educational Media��
Journal of Literacy and Technology
116
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
and ��Educational Leadership��. The system realizes an approach of connecting generic web
2.0 tools instead of a widget-based technology. Taking this system as an example as well as
the master��s program, the following investigation develops a concept on how to connect
different generic tools used in learners PLE. The aforementioned aspects of heterogeneity are
the first assumption for designing the concept. Accordingly, learners PLEs can contain an
inconsistent set of tools, including redundancy. The second assumption concerns the
understanding of PLE itself. Thus a Learning Management System for formal learning
opportunities in higher education should focus on connecting the personal environments of
the learners instead of offering a dominant and central TEL system. With these assumptions
the interaction between PLE and LMS can complement each other. The belief, sometimes
suggested in the scientific discussion, that PLEs displaces LMSs, is unsustainable from the
perspective of a formal master program in higher education, because an LMS fulfils at least
the function network and links the participants in a central und unified place.
Bookmarking tools in PLE
Bookmarking tools are created to help users to collect and structure web resources.
Many of these tools use social tagging as a way to structure resources and contents. The idea
of social tagging has become popular in many different web tools and is a standard tool in
many social software applications (Marlow et al., 2006 ). Tagging means that users annotate
digital objects with free chosen keywords (Golder & Huberman, 2006). Together with other
tools, tags are used to describe single objects in the platform. For example in flickr tags are
used to describe photos that are uploaded to the platforms. In social bookmarking platform
the objects are links that refer to other websites or documents. A single learner describes an
object by free chosen tags. In contrast to a hierarchically taxonomy, learners do not have to
classify the object in a given set of terms. They are free to create their own system of
Journal of Literacy and Technology
117
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
classification. Describing an object by using tags can be seen as part of a learning process:
Learners have to think about the tags that are most appropriate to describe an object.
Therefore tagging is an active part of learning. The result of this learning activity is ��tag
cloud��. In this cloud all tags are assembled and tags that are use more frequently are
represented in a bigger scale. A tag cloud, therefore, can be regarded as a representation of a
learner��s concept of the subject.
So far we have described a personal tagging tool. The social aspect occurs when
different learners start to share their tags and objects – in case of a bookmarking tool their
bookmarks. In common social bookmarking tools the community of people share their tags
and links and, therefore, their knowledge as an informal open community. In these
communities, people can also build open or closed groups and networks by building
friendships or following each other. But it is important to keep in mind that in this place
learning happens in an informal setting and manner. When using a social bookmarking tool,
at the beginning learners can browse through the collection of resources by using the tags
created by other users. While exploring the tag clouds they may pick up new tags they
consider helpful for their own resources. Again the idea of the tag cloud and relevance of the
tag indicated by the relative size of a word in the cloud become important support of the
learning activities taking place in this bookmarking communities. For example, a learner can
use tag cloud to explore the resources of a given area and may reflect and expand his or her
own concept of this area and adopt certain tags to use with their own objects. A social
bookmarking tool therefore is not only a tool that gives learners access to even more
information, documents and resources. It also can help to build and extend knowledge by
using tags. Tags can be used by learners in two ways: learners can describe objects to
Journal of Literacy and Technology
118
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
elaborate their concept of the topic or they use tags of others to broaden their knowledge
(Cress, Held & Kimmerle, 2012).
From the perspective of higher education learning communities in formal learning
settings often share knowledge that is represented in texts that can be found on websites.
They can use different tools of a LMS to do so. They can collect links in a forum or wiki - in
both cases losing the benefit of tags and tag clouds. Therefore, social bookmarking tools can
be useful for learning in a formal setting using an LMS. Learners can collect resources from
the web together and tag them to create a common knowledge base structured by a
folksonomy build from the tags they used. However, the following problem occurs: What is
the appropriate tool or web service to use? Is it part of the LMS offered by the institution or
do they use a generic tool specialized on the task of bookmarking? And if the decision is to
use a generic tool, how can they decide what tool they are going to use? If the tool is part of
the LMS, the knowledge created remains in the LMS even when students finish the course.
Even if there is an export feature: during the course students would have to decide whether to
use the usual tool or the course tool. Using generic tools is even worse. Students using
different tools would hardly be able to know about the findings of their fellows.
Learners learn during their entire lifetime, that means learning is a life long learning
process that now can be supported by social software of different types (Klamma, 2007).
Therefore, learners who use the internet as a learning resource will most likely make a
decision for one tool the like best regardless of the context. Learning in formal settings takes
place only for a period of time. Learners come together to take a course or a seminar and then
spread out again. It is not necessary that they build a community that lasts longer than the
duration of the learning activity they share. For this purpose it seems to be useful to describe
possibilities to bridge PLEs and LMS. In this way learners can use their usual bookmarking
Journal of Literacy and Technology
119
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
tools and amount of links, knowledge and groups they collected and formed within the tool
when following a formal learning course. The idea of bridging PLE and LMS considers the
use of different external bookmarking tools and the linking of them together in a formal
learning scenario. As a result, learners may use their PLE to organize their own learning
process, to create a knowledge base and to share resources.
In a formal learning scenario learners may use their knowledge and structures to
obtain new information. New items shouldn't be stored in a new and course related
bookmarking system or a bookmarking system of an isolated LMS. Learners might also want
to transfer new items into their own PLE. So the bridge has to serve two purposes: It has to
offer an easy to use way to aggregate knowledge from a variety of bookmarking tools used in
the learners PLEs (direction PLE to LMS) and a smart option for the user to integrate selected
items into a PLE (direction LMS to PLE). As explained later the PLE in this case can be
regarded as a bridge. Also to understand how different tools can be bridged by the use of tags
we have to take a closer look at tagging as the way individual and shared knowledge is
represented. When it comes to social tagging another advantage is important. Social tagging
means different learners objects can be described in different dimensions. The challenge is to
correctly assign the resources of different origins to the corresponding courses and formal
learning groups.
Edutags: an example for a social bookmarking tool
As a result of a joined project between the University of Duisburg-Essen and DIPF,
the German Institute for International Educational Research as a member of the Leibniz
Association, the social bookmarking system ��Edutags�� has been developed (see figure 1).
Among others, DIPF offers and operates the German ��Eduserver��, a server dedicated to
educational resources. Edutags extends this server by a community oriented bookmarking
Journal of Literacy and Technology
120
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
system. With the focus on primary and secondary education, Edutags is a bookmarking tool
for educators, teachers, pupil and also students to collect and classify a knowledge base of
educational resources on the web. The system offers both a personal bookmarking tool
combined with community and collaboration functions. The concept of Edutags is to offer
teachers an easy to use system to collect, tag and share resources for daily teaching (Heinen,
2011). The service features
• an integration into all common web browsers allowing to mark and classify any web
resource within the web browser,
• suggestion of classification while bookmarking a resource, based on the community,
• functions to explore and search web resources,
• management of groups and friendships, among the ability to share bookmarks,
• interoperability with mobile devices and LMS.
The social bookmarking tool was established in 2011. Until now the tool counts 1.800 active
users. The database contains more than 18.000 resources collected by users and shared in
around 250 groups. Given this range, Edutags is used in PLEs of several students, learners
and teachers for managing and collecting private bookmarks as well as in learning groups,
distance learning courses and LMS of schools and HE institutes. Further development will
investigate more interoperability in Edutags especially focussing on platforms offering open
educational resources (Heinen et. al., 2014).
Journal of Literacy and Technology
121
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Figure 1: The social bookmarking tool ��Edutags��
Investigating the use of bookmarking tools in distance learners' PLEs
For the scope of bookmarking tools as a central element of a PLE, the authors
conducted a study to have a closer look at the heterogeneous use of bookmarking tools of
participants of distance learning courses. The survey has been distributed in the Social
Learning Management System of the master programmes ��Educational Leadership�� and
��Educational Media�� of the University of Duisburg-Essen as well as to the participants of a
dedicated online course concerning Open Educational Resources ��COER 13��. In the online
master programmes nearly 100 participants of the two programmes are familiar with
Technology Enhanced Learning and distance learning scenarios. Also the participants of
COER 13 are familiar with distance learning. The amount of return of the survey (n = 32) can
hence serve as an exemplary basis to illustrate the concept and not to draw further
conclusions. This survey focuses on the plausibility of conceptual ideas and does not
predicate the use of the final implementation.
Table 1: Frequency of bookmarking tools mentioned in distance learners' PLE (n=32)
Journal of Literacy and Technology
122
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Edutags
14 Webbrowser 14 Diigo
11 Delicious 9
Google
Bookmarks
7
Mr Wong
4
Pocket
3
Zotero
2
Instapaper 1
Readability 1
Xmarks
1
Pinboard
1
Evernote
1
ScoopIT
1
Kippt
1
The questionnaire first suggested several bookmarking tools (e.g. Delicious, Edutags, Google
Bookmarks etc. as well as the bookmarking tool of the web browser) including the possibility
to freely add other tools and asked the user to choose the tools they usually employ. The
question offered the possibility to choose multiple tools and 59% of the respondents chose
two or more tools. The most frequently chosen tools in the sample are Edutags (marked 14
times), web brwoser bookmarking tools (also marked 14 times), Diigo (marked 11 times) and
Delicious (marked 9 times). The second question explored the use of bookmarking tools.
They may either be used in a private way to bookmark content for oneself but also in a social
way. The social way includes searching in the collections of the community, assigning search
results to the private collection and collecting bookmarks collaboratively in groups. Clearly
the private usage is the most common use case as 75% of the respondent marked that item as
��often�� and 94% as at least ��sometimes��. The two use cases searching and assigning results
to the private collection are very similar: around 40% never used a tool that way, around 60%
at least sometimes whereas searching is a little bit more common (20% ��often��) compared to
assigning search results to the private collection (15% ��often��). Finally the collaborative use
is somewhat more popular than the other two social uses. The private use can thus be
Journal of Literacy and Technology
123
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
considered as the default use for bookmarking tools, although social uses showed some
relevance.
Table 2: Use of bookmarking tools in distance learners' PLE (n=32)2
Use Case ��
Private Use
Social Use
�� Frequency
bookmark for
oneself
search bookmarks assign results to
private
collection
collect bookmarks
in groups
never
2
6%
11
37%
11
41%
11
35%
sometimes
1
19%
13
43%
15
56%
15
48%
often
24
75%
6
20%
4
15%
5
16%
As the survey showed bookmarking tools are used as an element of learners PLE. Also social
bookmarking is established and used. Therefore a concept of linking different bookmarking
tools used by the participants of a formal learning scenario like courses of a master
programme seems to be plausible and useful. One not even has to consider that distance
learners already use multiple bookmarking tools and thus own expertise in using this tools as
well as an amount of bookmarks stored in different systems. But also learners are at least
familiar with the social usage of bookmarking tools.
Conceptual reflections and interface design
2
The survey offered the possibility to skip answers. The percentage value is calculated
against the amount of answers within the use case.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
124
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
This article describes the design of an interface bridging between bookmarking tools
as an element of the learners PLE and the institutions SLMS realised as a ��social hub��. The
design focuses on an interface is to be used in higher education courses, in particular a formal
online master programme. This approach is geared to the structure of a bridge in graph theory
and social media analysis insofar as it takes this structure as a design model. To focus the
concept the above mentioned tools and systems are used as example: ��Edutags�� as a social
bookmarking tool as well as ��Online Campus Next Generation�� as Social Learning
Management System. Although this study focuses on a connection of specific tools, the
interface needs to be designed as an open and universal connector suitable for many
bookmarking tools.
Typically a PLE is illustrated as a network graph but as a special form of network.
Scott Leslie collected 78 diagrams of PLEs on his wikispace ��edtechpost��. The diagrams
have been created by educators, advanced learners and specialists. They have been collected
from Leslies own personal network and illustrate a personal view to the subject of PLE. After
four years of collecting them he posted some of his observations concerning the diagrams
(Leslie, 2012). He remarked that the main metaphor used to illustrate a PLE is a network
diagram, especially a hub-and-spoke network characterized by a centred hub at which all
lines leaves like spokes. Not all diagrams show persons as the centre hub but also tools (like a
webbrowser or a reader tool). Even if this observation is exemplary as it is based on a
particular collection, one can find similar diagrams on scientific publications of PLE (e.g.
Wilson, 2009). Further it corresponds to the relation between the subject and his/her PLE in
terms of ownership and control (Buchem et al., 2011).
Journal of Literacy and Technology
125
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Figure 2: Diagrams illustrating PLE collected by Scott Leslie (Leslie 2012)
Compared to the structure of the internet, these observations are interesting regarding the
relation between the personal and the social in PLEs: As Leslie explains: ��While they [the
PLE diagrams, TH] capture the individual user��s perspective of being at the ��centre�� of their
network, these are not actually accurate representations of how internet networks as a whole
look�� (Leslie, 2012). If one considers the internet as representing social relations between
individuals, these ego-centred diagrams lack of social relations between the participants.
These individual networks of tools and environments need to be connected to realise
distance-learning scenarios. Of course these connections can be done within the chosen tools
by agreeing upon specific tools. But an agreement like this can serve as a limitation to the
own environment. If we consider the personal learning environment as a basis to lifelong
learning that stays persistent over multiple qualifications, participants of distance learning
opportunities may need to change well established tools of their environment.
In social network analysis it is common to identify the vertices of a graph as actors
and the edges as social relations between the actors. Several kinds of social relations have
been analysed that way, e.g. e-mail and forum messages sent between participants of distance
Journal of Literacy and Technology
126
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
learning course (Reffay & Chanier, 2002). From a perspective that considers a PLE not to be
an institutional platform but the personal environment of a learner, one can suggest that an
individual can only act on behalf of its environment. The diagrams collected by Leslie (2012)
illustrate the network of tools a person uses to act, receive and react on the Internet. Even e-
mail and forum messages are not send by the individual directly but on behalf of web
browsers and e-mail tools representing parts of the individual��s environment. Thus with
regard to PLE, vertices of social graphs can be environments of tools. These tools often
realise relations to other individuals like e-mails sent to others, friendships, posts to groups
and bookmarks. In this way edges of a graph can be considered as one of the heterogeneous
relations between the environments. This interpretation of vertices and edges of graph as
personal environments and its relations to other personal environments can lead to the
conceptual metaphor of bridging personal learning environments. Bridges in graph theory
connect components of a graph, they are critical to the connectedness of a graph. If a bridge
is removed from the graph, the resulting graph has more components than when the bridge is
included (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, p 114). Bridging PLEs with respect to the mentioned
conceptual metaphor means to build connections between the tools of different environments;
maybe by connecting multiple tools of the same kind in the context of a distance-learning
course.
Assigning items on behalf of tags
A challenge in bridging PLEs with regard to bookmarking tools is to identify the
context of a bookmark resource. One has to consider that in higher education learners follow
multiple courses. Thus a Social Learning Management System must be able to aggregate the
bookmarks of participants of different courses. Lastly, because bookmarking tools are also
used privately, a learner must be able to decide if a resource is to be assigned to a formal
Journal of Literacy and Technology
127
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
learning context. An obvious way to solve that challenge is to use the tagging feature of
bookmarking tools. As explained above, social bookmarking uses tags to identify resources.
Because tags can be freely assigned by the learner, they can be used for different purposes. A
requirement to automatically identify the formal learning context of a bookmark resource by
its tags is a unique set of fixes tags used by all participants of a course to identify the context
of the corresponding course. In other words, courses in a social LMS need short acronyms
(Figure 3). If the acronym of a course is used by a participant as a tag for a bookmark
resource, the bookmark can be assigned to the course.
Figure 3: Concept of bridging PLEs: courses within the Learning Management Systems are
marked with acronymes (here: ��#a�� and ��#b��) that matches tags used in learners PLE
bookmarking tool.
A closer look on adequate interfaces to export content from bookmarking tools shows that
RSS feeds are widely used for that purpose. Edutags as well as Diigo and Delicious, the three
Journal of Literacy and Technology
128
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
most frequently mentioned online bookmarking tools in the survey, support RSS feeds to
export bookmarks of a user. Reading and handling RSS feeds is well established in most web
developing environments. But with respect to the need to include users�� tags in the RSS feed.
The situation looks different. It is not sufficient to somehow include the tags in the RSS feed,
the tags need to be marked up so they can be identified automatically. The specifications of
RSS 2.0 provide an element that can be used to mark tags: the ��category�� element3. Edutags
supports marking tags in that way. Diigo like Delicious do not support the category element,
maybe because the feeds do not support RSS specification version 2.0. Instead the tags are
included in the description element as links. Of course this way of marking tags can also be
processed automatically, but the markup style misses an official standard. At least the fact
that both tools, Diigo and Delicious, include the users�� tags in the description elements shows
that a PLE bridge can use bookmark tags to assign bookmark resources to courses. The
required data is exported by the RSS feed.
To transfer the knowledge of a single learners PLE to the group within the Social
Leaning Management System RSS feeds are reasonable. The learner can register the feeds of
the own PLEs bookmarking tools to the LMS and as soon as the new bookmarks appears in
the feed it is imported into the LMS as well and assigned to the course group according to the
tag acronym. To save the benefit of the social tagging the LMS has to preserve the tags of the
bookmarks and take care that the imported bookmarks within the LMS are marked with the
same tags then in the generic bookmarking tool. The LMS can than build a new tag-cloud
representing the knowledge of the group. This import procedure may produce duplicate
bookmarks within the LMS because learners can tag the same web resource on different
3
According to RSS 2.0 Specifications: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification
Journal of Literacy and Technology
129
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
bookmarking tools all imported to the same group in the LMS. This might be regarded as a
problem, but the doublet bookmarks referring to the same web resource keep meaningful
information within the LMS. They also retain the relation to the learners bookmarking system
expressing that a specific resource has been bookmarked and tagged by several learners. By
accepting doublets, the bridge offers the opportunities to explore more of the learners
collected knowledge. In case a learner will add a resources from the LMS to his or he own
PLEs bookmarking tool, this can be done in the same way other resources are added to the
specific bookmarking tool: the user can use a generic javascript ��bookmarklet��, an adapted
toolbar for the web browser as well as other ways offered by the bookmarking system. Via
RSS this adopted bookmark will be integrated in the tag cloud of the learners group if the
learner specified the group acronym as a tag while assigning the resource to the own
bookmark collection. In this case the interface collects the resource in the next iteration,
identifies the acronym and assigns the bookmark to the corresponding learning group in the
LMS. Possible new tags broaden the knowledge base of the learning community.
Implementation using the Content Management System ��Drupal��
The implementation of the specified interface is planned to use the Content
Management System ��Drupal�� as framework instead of generic Learning Management
Systems like Moodle. The decision to choose Drupal rests upon the Social Learning
Management System that is currently used in the online masters programmes at the
University of Duisburg-Essen. The ��Online Campus Next Generation�� is developed with
Drupal to take advantages of the numerously social media modules developed and maintained
by the Drupal community. The organic groups module builds social relations between website
users by forming groups. This module can be used to form courses as well as learning groups.
Arranging learning content can be done by the books module featuring a hierarchical
Journal of Literacy and Technology
130
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
structure of pages. Content can consist of videos, audios, pictures, texts, pdf files as well as
SCORM elements. Learning assignments, student submissions and teacher feedback can be
realised by the workflow module in combination with several workflow extension modules.
The workflow modules allows to specify a succession of submission states like creation,
editing, submitted, reviewed, finalised with corresponding fields to be activated and locked
for feedback text, attachments etc. A more detailed description on how the ��Online Campus
Next Generation�� is created on basis of the Content Management System Drupal is given in
Hölterhof & Kerres (2011).
The interface to bridge bookmarking tools used in learners PLEs to a SLMS like the
��Online Campus Next Generation�� can use the Drupal feed module and its extension
modules. This modules allows to parse RSS 2.0 feeds and import the feed items as website
content by mapping item fields to internal web content. In this way the interface can be
configured almost without the need of programming. However a little customisation is
necessary first to extract the bookmark tags from RSS feeds that do not use the category
element. In this case a parser needs to be written that matches the tags within the description
section of the feed. Second assigning the imported bookmarks to the corresponding courses
on behalf of the acronym is a customisation task of Drupals feed modules as well. Lastly, the
issue of creating tag clouds is a standard feature and can be realised by corresponding
modules without the need of programming. So, the Drupal community offers valuable
modules and plugins to implement the interface, but still there is a need of customisation by
programming.
Conclusion
The concept to bridge learners PLE is based upon the metaphoric idea of bridges in
social network analyses. According to this metaphor, a bridge connects components of a
Journal of Literacy and Technology
131
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
graph that elsewhere stays isolated. An analysis of PLE diagrams by Leslie (2012) indicates
the structure of PLEs to be an ego-centred hub and stroke structure. It has been argued that
the need to connect PLEs can be derived from this structure because it stays in contrary to the
connected structure of the internet. Regarding the example of bookmarking tools used in
learners PLE this need can be illustrated. As an exemplary survey showed, distance learning
participant��s uses multiple bookmarking tools in private and social use cases within their
PLE. To make available the knowledge and resources learners collected in their bookmarking
tools to formal learning scenarios as learning courses in higher education, the bookmarking
tools needs to be connected to the institutions Learning Management System. The issue of
connecting Personal Learning Environments with Learning Management Systems also
reveals the relation between PLE and LMS in a different light. While the discussion about
these two systems often constitutes a contrast between them, this issue focuses on integrating
them.
As an exemplary environment to discuss an interface for connecting bookmarking
tools as PLE components the Social Learning Management System ��Online Campus Next
Generation�� is used as well as the social bookmarking tool ��Edutags��. The mentioned LMS
and bookmarking tool uses Drupal as framework. A challenge in realising this interface is to
assign the learners bookmarks to the corresponding course within the LMS. To solve this
need the courses are marked with acronyms. Bookmarks are imported by the LMS with the
corresponding tags from the generic learners bookmarking tools and assigned to the courses
by matching the tags to course acronyms. With this procedure, tag clouds can be formed out
of the bookmarked web resources of the course learners.
This article shows the need of rich metadata in feeds as the RSS 2.0 standard offers.
Feeds are an easy way to connect web tools used in PLEs but to preserve meaningful
Journal of Literacy and Technology
132
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
information collected in the bookmarking tools, tags and marks assigned to a resource by the
learner needs to be considered as well. As a way to face dominant design and to include
personalisation, Learning Management Systems needs to be designed as permeable systems.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
133
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
References
Aresta, M., Pedro, L., Santos. C. & Moreira, A. (2012). Building Identity in an Institutionally
Supported Personal Learning Environment-the case of SAPO Campus. Proceedings of
The PLE Conference 2013. Retrieved September 23, 2013 from
http://revistas.ua.pt/index.php/ple/article/view/1428
Attwell, G. (2007). Personal Learning Environments - the future of eLearning ? Lifelong
Learning, 2, 1–8.
Buchem, I., Attwell, G. & Torres, R. (2011). Understanding personal learning environments:
Literature review and synthesis through the activity theory lens. Proceedings of The
PLE Conference 2011.
Cress, U., Held, C. & Kimmerle, J. (2012). The collective knowledge of social tags: Direct
and indirect influences on navigation, learning, and information processing.
Computers & Education, 60 (1). Retrieved September 23, 2013 from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036013151200200X
Dahrendorf, D., Dikke, D. & Faltin, N. (2012). Sharing Personal Learning Environments for
Widget Based Systems using a Widget Marketplace. Proceedings of The PLE
Conference 2012. Retrieved September 23, 2013 from
http://revistas.ua.pt/index.php/ple/article/view/1445
Downes, S., 2010. New Technology Supporting Informal Learning. Journal of Emerging
Technologies in Web Intelligence, 2 (1). Retrieved September 23, 2013 from
http://ojs.academypublisher.com/index.php/jetwi/article/view/2461
Journal of Literacy and Technology
134
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Heinen, R., Blees, I. (2011). Social Bookmarking als Werkzeug f��r die Kooperation von
Lehrkräften. In: Griesbaum J, Mandl Womser-Hacker (Eds.) 12. Internationales
Symposium f��r Informationswissenschaften, Boizenburg: Verlag Werner H��lsbuch,
111-122.
Heinen, R., Blees, I., Kerres, M., Rittberger, M. (2014). Open educational resources and
social bookmarking: Connecting Users and Editors. LINQ 2014 & EIF 2014
Conference.
Hölterhof, T., Nattland, A. & Kesser, M. (2012). Drupal as a Social Hub for Personal
Learning. Proceedings of The PLE Conference 2012. Retrieved June 17, 2013 from
http://revistas.ua.pt/index.php/ple/article/view/1453.
Hölterhof, T. & Kerres, M. (2011). Modellierung sozialer Kommunikation als Communities
in Social Software und Lernplattformen. In Heiß, H. U., Pepper, P., Schlinghoff, H. &
Schneider, J. (Eds.) Informatik 2011. Informatik schafft Communities. Bonn:
Gesellschaft f��r Informatik, 433.
Kerres, M., Hölterhof, T. & Nattland, A. (2011). Zur didaktischen Konzeption von «Sozialen
Lernplattformen» f��r das Lernen in Gemeinschaften. MedienPädagogik 2011,
09.12.2011. Retrieved September 23, 2013 from
http://www.medienpaed.com/Documents/medienpaed/2011/kerres1112.pdf
Klamma, R., Chatti, M. A., Duval, E., Hummel, H., Hvannberg, E. H., Kravcik, M., Law, E.,
Naeve, A. & Scott, P. (2007). Social Software for Life-long Learning. Educational
Technology & Society, 10 (3), 72-83. Retrieved September 23, 2013 from
http://dspace.learningnetworks.org/bitstream/1820/910/4/ET%26S_socialsoftware.pdf
Journal of Literacy and Technology
135
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Reffay, C. & Chanier, T. (2002). Social Network Analysis used for modelling collaboration
in distance learning groups. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems 2363, 31–40. Retrieved
September 23, 2013 from
http://www.springerlink.com/index/b4197184w8667748.pdf.
Scott L. (2012): Some Observations on PLE Diagrams. Blogpost retrieved June 17, 2013
from http://www.edtechpost.ca/wordpress/2012/12/19/ple-diagrams-observations/
Taraghi, B., Ebner, M., Till. G. (2009). Personal Learning Environment – a Conceptual Study.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Interactive Computer Aided Learning.
Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: methods and applications,
Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Weller, M. (2010). The Centralisation Dilemma in Educational IT. International Journal of
Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 1(1).
Wild, F., Moedritscher, F. & Sigurdarson, S. (2008). Designing for change: mash-up personal
learning environments. eLearning Papers, 9.
Wilson, S., Liber, O., Johnson, M., Beauvoir, P., Sharples, P. Milligan, C. (2009). Personal
Learning Environments: Challenging the dominant design of educational systems.
Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society-English Version, 3(2).
Journal of Literacy and Technology
136
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Interaction and Reflection with Quantified Self and Gamification: an
Experimental Study
BENEDIKT S. MORSCHHEUSER
E-Mail: Benedikt.Morschheuser@uni-leipzig.de
Current position: Research Scientist at University of Leipzig
VERÓNICA RIVERA-PELAYO
E-Mail: rivera@fzi.de
Current position: Research scientist at FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik
ATHANASIOS MAZARAKIS
E-Mail: mazarakis@fzi.de
Current position: Research scientist at FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik
VALENTIN ZACHARIAS
E-Mail: zach@fzi.de
Current position: Division Manager at FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik
Journal of Literacy and Technology
137
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Abstract
In this paper, we present our research on the impact of gamification – ��the use of game
design elements in non-game contexts�� – to increase the motivation of students to use PLEs
(Personal Learning Environments) that enhance interaction and support reflection in lectures.
To examine this, we conducted an experiment with the Live-Interest-Meter (LIM), a
Quantified Self (QS) application which allows capturing, sharing and visualizing several
types of feedback with the aim of improving the learning experience during and after
lectures. The results show that perceived fun has a positive effect on the motivation to use the
LIM and the motivation to use the application with gamification is significantly higher than
for the application without it. Therefore, gamification seems to be an appropriate enabler to
engage people in using QS approaches as PLEs for improving their learning experiences.
Introduction
Recently there has been a growing interest in the impact of gamification, i.e. ��the use
of game design elements in non-game contexts�� (Deterding et al., 2011), on motivation in
several contexts, including business and education (e.g. Thom et al., 2012; Lee & Hammer,
2011). In the context of learning, gamification may contribute to increase the motivation of
students to use tools for optimizing their personal learning environment (PLE) and
knowledge about their own learning behaviour in the future4.
In the case of informal learning, several tools have been developed and tested within
the EU-Project MIRROR – Reflective Learning at Work5 –, to support reflective learning in
4
This paper is an extension of work originally reported in the PLE Conference 2013 by B. S.
Morschheuser, V. Rivera-Pelayo, A. Mazarakis, V. Zacharias (2013). Gamifying Quantified Self Approaches for
Learning: An experiment with the Live Interest Meter.
In Proceedings of the PLE Conference 2013. (in press)
5
http: //www.mirror-project.eu
Journal of Literacy and Technology
138
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
work environments. Some of these tools are self-tracking applications, also known as
Quantified Self (QS) tools, i.e. tools that collect personally relevant information to gain self-
knowledge about one's own behaviours, habits and thoughts6. Rivera-Pelayo et al. (2012)
defined an integrated model which describes how QS tools can support reflective learning.
This support is divided in three possible dimensions, namely (i) tracking cues, (ii) triggering
reflection and (iii) recalling and revisiting experiences, with the aim of guiding learners to
achieve their desired outcomes. One of these MIRROR QS tools is the Live-Interest-Meter
(LIM) (Rivera-Pelayo et al., 2013), which allows capturing, aggregating and visualizing
feedback given to the lecturer with the aim of improving interaction and supporting reflective
learning for both speaker and audience. In this concrete scenario, the desired reflection
outcomes may be improvements of the presenter's skills and performance when addressing an
audience. In order to achieve this, the LIM implements the three dimensions defined in the
integrated model.
According to Warschauer (2006), ��the intersection between interaction and reflection
is of critical importance in education��. In his article, Warschauer discusses the relationship of
technology to literacy by focusing on computer-mediated texts, but the importance of
enhancing the interaction and reflection is also applicable to data in other formats
(Warschauer, 2006).
This is the case of the LIM, which aims at capturing several interaction aspects during
the lecture (e.g. feedback), making this data available retrospectively, and thereby improving
reflective practices. Both students and lecturers can benefit from the LIM, as students are
provided with an easy means to assess their learning (e.g. understanding of the lecture��s
6
http://www.quantifiedself.com
Journal of Literacy and Technology
139
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
content) and lecturers can gain insights about their performance and the students�� perspective,
by analysing the captured feedback. The LIM has a uni-dimensional configurable meter that
allows students to track their feedback and evaluate the lecture (e.g. speed of speech or
comprehension). During a lecture and afterwards, the individual learning experience is
supported by the visualization of this tracked feedback data, which is also aggregated and
analysed, and by peer comparison. Therefore, this contributes to the learners own learning
process. Studies with the LIM and other MIRROR apps have shown that the use of such QS
reflective learning applications in educational and working contexts faces a lack of
motivation. Concretely, the results of several studies conducted with the LIM showed
concerns regarding the students�� voluntary participation to give feedback and actively be
involved in the lectures (Rivera-Pelayo et al., 2013).
With the goal to enhance the user��s engagement, we examined whether gamification
can increase motivation to use QS tools like the Live-Interest-Meter. We conducted an
extended literature review on gamification, the QS community and learning through
reflection in order to create a theoretical framework. We also analysed successes and failures
of existing gamification approaches. Following, we conducted an experiment to analyse the
users�� intention to use an adapted version of the Live-Interest-Meter with and without
gamification.
In the following, we present the background of our work, including gamification, its
role in Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) and related approaches. In Section 3, the
presented case study will be explained in detail. Following, the conducted experiment will be
described in Section 4. Finally, we will outline our findings (Section 5) before concluding this
paper.
Theoretical background
Journal of Literacy and Technology
140
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
The use of game design elements in non-game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011), also
known as gamification, represents a huge trend in Human-Computer-Interaction (HCI),
marketing (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011), enterprise (Schacht & Schacht, 2012) and
education (Lee & Hammer, 2011). Already in the 1980s, Malon et al. (1982) researched the
positive impact of game elements in interfaces and suggested to use video game elements to
enhance the interest, joy and satisfaction of computer systems. Following the predictions of
analysts like Gartner (2011) and gamification visionaries (Schell, 2010; McGonigal, 2011), it
is likely that gamification will play an important role in future urban spaces, including new
forms of gamified education (Charles et al., 2011). Since the rise of gamification, education is
a popular application field of this new motivation method. Charles et al. (2011) examined that
gamification in education and TEL can increase the learners�� engagement, strengthen the
social relations, raise satisfaction, help to identify personal strengths and weaknesses and give
a more detailed personal feedback.
The use of gamification to support learning through self-reflection with QS tools has
not been previously studied in detail. However, this combination has been successfully
applied in many popular applications like Nike+7, HealthMonth8 or Mint9. All these examples
motivate people with gamification to collect personal information about their behaviour. The
target of our research is to transfer this approach to the education context and to examine, if
7
http://nikeplus.nike.com
8
http://healthmonth.com
9
https://www.mint.com
Journal of Literacy and Technology
141
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
gamification can improve the motivation to collect data and reflect on it with technology
enhanced PLEs in order to improve personal learning.
Case study
The object of our research is an adapted version of the Live-Interest-Meter, a
Quantified Self application and PLE that supports the reflective learning process for
presenters and listeners. This version of the LIM, which was developed based on Rivera-
Pelayo et al. (2013), consists of two main components: 1) the
Meter, a mobile app that allows
capturing and visualizing live feedback in lectures and 2) the
LIM-Community, a web
platform to review past presentations, analyse the personal learning behaviour and interact
with other users.
Figure 1. Prototype of the LIM meter as Android App
The Meter (Figure 1) was designed to quantify and track the performance of the
presenter as well as the context of the students during a lecture in order to improve the
individual learning process of both students and presenter. The tool allows listeners to
evaluate a lecture in real time on a uni-dimensional meter, whose scale can be chosen from a
Journal of Literacy and Technology
142
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
preconfigured set (speed of speech, interest, difficulty and comprehension). The gathered data
is aggregated and visualized to the users. If a certain threshold value is exceeded, the
presenter will see a discreet hint and can react on it, thereby receiving information about the
presentation and adapting it to the audience. This live feedback loop is illustrated in Figure 2.
Participants can also compare their individual learning situation with peers. Therefore the
Meter supports learners who can reflect on their own performance and improve their
behaviour in comparison to peers but also the presenter, who gets real-time feedback about
the lecture.
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of the LIM scenario
Later, participants can reflect on a past lecture, by logging in into the LIM-Community. This
web platform allows reviewing captured lectures, visualized and aggregated in graphs and
enriched with collected metadata like date, time, topic and participants, and also context
information (notes added by the audience). The students can discuss about lectures in forums
and can evaluate their collected data. Thus, the LIM-Community can be used to recall
information from past lectures combined with the associated events in the audience. The data
from each lecture is also available for the lecturer, who can review in the LIM-Community
Journal of Literacy and Technology
143
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
the feedback received in each session and reflect on it in order to improve future
presentations. The combination of the Meter and the LIM-Community provides a personal
learning environment that helps presenters as well as regular attendees of lectures to
visualize, understand and improve their personal learning process and behaviour.
Experiment: The Gamified LIM
We conducted an online experiment with a 2x2 Latin Square design (Hicks, 1973) to
analyse the impact of gamification on the motivation to use the LIM, by examining the users��
intention to use a gamified and a not gamified version of the tool.
Gamification of the LIM
In order to keep the distraction of the students to a minimum during the lectures, gamification
was only applied to the LIM-Community to foster the motivation to collect quantitative and
qualitative data during lectures. In a software design process, based on Radoff��s (2010)
player-centred design model, we selected multiple game mechanics and interface elements
for the gamified version of the LIM, based on analysed needs of our target audience. We
developed personas, derived from the surveyed participants of Rivera-Pelayo et al. (2013)
and matched them with the player types of Bartle (1996) and interviews/profiles of Mayer
(2009).
Central element of the gamified version is the personal
Knowledge Tree. This
narrative element stands for the personal learning progress and grows with each lecture in
which the user collects data with the LIM. Engagement in using the LIM or the
accomplishment of tasks are rewarded with badges and points. The animated badges, e.g.
little birds or squirrels (see Figure 3 right), can be decorated in a tree branch, which
represents a lecture. The overall personal progress is indicated in points and can be compared
with other players in global leaderboards.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
144
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Figure 3. Prototypes of the LIM-Community. Left without gamification, right with
gamification.
Experiment
Considering successful gamified QS examples like Nike+4 or HealthMonth5, it seems
that QS approaches can benefit from gamification. Therefore, gamification may be also an
appropriate enabler to engage people in using QS approaches as PLEs for improving their
personal learning experiences. Concerning our experiment, our first hypothesis was:
H1: The intention to use the LIM with gamification (game elements, game mechanics,
storytelling and playful design) is higher than without gamification.
Consequently, if gamification can increase the motivation to use the LIM in general, we also
believe that gamification can support the motivation to keep tracking, according to Quantified
Self, over a long-term period. Li et al. (2010) points out that a lack in motivation is one
important barrier in the QS process and motivation to keep collecting personal data must be
Journal of Literacy and Technology
145
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
raised regularly for long-term success. We believe that suitable gamification elements are
able to counteract that problem in a systematic and methodical manner. This leads to the
following hypothesis concerning the LIM:
H2: The intention to use the QS application LIM long-term and to visit the Community
regularly is higher with gamification than without.
In general, it is assumed that gamification can enhance intrinsic motivation. Igbaria et al
(1994) showed that ��system usage is affected by both extrinsic motivation (usefulness) and
intrinsic motivation (fun). Both are important in affecting the individual decision whether to
accept or reject a new technology��. Based on this, we believe that this is also true for
gamified QS-applications:
H3: The perceived fun during the usage has a positive correlation on the usage intention of
QS applications like the LIM.
We conducted an online experiment which was 20 days active and allowed us to reach the
appropriate target group. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of two groups.
Group 1 (G1) evaluated first the non-gamified version of the LIM and then the gamified
version, whereas group 2 (G2) evaluated the versions the other way around. After a short
video introduction and verifying the role of the participant in lectures, the gamified (G) or
non-gamified version (O), depending on the group, was presented to the subjects (see Figure
4). Subsequently, we asked the participants a set of questions. Afterwards, we presented them
the other version of the LIM-Community and asked them the same questions. Finally, we
Journal of Literacy and Technology
146
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
asked demographical data and supplementary questions, like the interest to learn from
personal QS data. The experimental design allowed us to perform two different analyses
between the gamified and non-gamified version: the independent differences between the
randomized and independent groups (between-subject) as well as the responses at the
individual level (within-subject).
Figure 4. Structure of the experiment
The questions that were asked after each presentation were divided in four sections (see Table
1). The intention to use the software - behavioural intention (BI1), which based on Fishbein
& Ajzen (1975) is an indicator for the real usage - was derived from successful TAM studies
of Venkatesh & Davis (2000) and Davis (1989). The questions about the long-term usage
(BI2) were inspired by Igbaria et al. (1994). Perceived usefulness (PU) was operationalized
with five items oriented at Venkatesh & Davis (2000) and Davis (1989). The questions were
adapted to the LIM needs. To measure FUN, we used the proven construct from Igbaria et al.
(1994) consisted of a 7-point semantic differential with six pairs.
Table 1. Research factors, questions and reliability assessment
Journal of Literacy and Technology
147
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Research
Construct
Questions
Cronbach��s alpha
Scale
Group 1
Group 2
G
O
G
O
PU
General usefulness (i),
usefulness to improve
effectiveness (ii) and
performance (iv), usefulness
for self reflection (iii) and self
improvement (vi)
0.898 0.897 0.917 0.945
7-point Likert-
scale
FUN
rewarding /unrewarding (i),
pleasant/unpleasant (ii),
fun/frustrating (iii),
enjoyable/unenjoyable (iv),
positive/negative (v),
interesting/ uninteresting (vi)
0.925 0.868 0.910 0.929
7-point
semantic
differential
BI1
General intention to test (i)
and use the meter(ii), the
community (iii), the collected
data (iv)
0.912 0.902 0.872 0.908
7-point Likert-
scale
BI2
Intention to use the meter (i),
the community (ii) and the
collected data (iii) regularly
0.876 0.837 0.792 0.775
7-point Likert-
scale
Data analysis and findings
Journal of Literacy and Technology
148
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
During the online experiment, the website was visited by 607 unique visitors and 14%
of them participated in the study. At the end, 70 complete valid data sets (according to control
variables and having specified that the participant takes part in lectures regularly) could be
used for the analysis. The automatic randomization resulted in 35 valid data records in G1
and 35 in G2. The distribution was homogeneous (Female G1: 13, G2: 13; male G1: 22, G2:
22; median age G1: 26, G2: 24; attend lectures regularly as student G1: 29, G2: 28; attend
lectures regularly at work G1: 10, G2: 10; QS interest G1: 22, G2: 19). Therefore, the
application of Pearson Chi-Square tests did not show significant differences in the groups,
concerning demographic data and QS interest. We assessed the internal consistency of the
measurement model by computing Cronbach��s alpha coefficients for each of the four
constructs PU, FUN, BI1 and BI2 in both groups and both versions (gamified (G) and not
gamified (O)). All 16 were between 0,775 and 0,945 and showed a high reliability (see Table
1).
Within-subject analysis
Figure 5 visualizes a descriptive analysis of the individual answers to the two LIM
versions (G and O). Comparing the BI1 and BI2 item sums of each participant showed that
both kinds of usage intention were higher in both groups with gamification than in the group
without gamification. We used non-parametric tests because the application of Kolmogorov-
Smirnov-Tests showed that it is possible that BI1(G) (p=0.045) and PU(O) (p=0.046) are not
normal distributed. For this reason, we verified our hypotheses 1 and 2 by using Wilcoxon
signed-rank tests. The analysis shows that the intention to use the LIM (BI1) and the long-
term and regularly use of the LIM and the LIM-Community (BI2) is with gamification
significantly higher than without. These results support our hypotheses 1 and 2.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
149
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Figure 5. Boxplot of all BI item sums to compare within-subject differences in each group.
Furthermore it was shown that also perceived fun is with gamification significantly higher
(see Table 2).
Table 2. Results of the within-subject analysis, Wilcoxon signed-rank test
Comparison
N
Sum of
ranks
p
(one-tailed)
PU
G - O
Negative ranks 17 478.00
0.025*
Positive ranks
35 900.00
Ties
18
Total
70
FUN G - O
Negative ranks 12 298.50
0.00**
Positive ranks
46 1412.50
Ties
12
Total
70
BI1 G - O
Negative ranks 10 280.00
0.00**
Journal of Literacy and Technology
150
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Positive ranks
46 1316.00
Ties
14
Total
70
BI2 G - O
Negative ranks 12 239.00
0.00**
Positive ranks
43 1301.00
Ties
15
Total
70
* is one-tailed significant at 0.05 level.
** is one-tailed significant at 0.01 level.
Between-subject analysis
The within-subject analysis is based on the individual comparison of both versions of
the LIM. With the between-subject analysis we tried to determine whether the results are
comparable, even if the participants only know one alternative. A tendency for the gamified
version was also recognized in this analysis, in which we examined only the independent first
answers in each group i.e. the answers to the not gamified version (O) in G1 and the answers
to the gamified one (G) in G2. The intention to use the LIM (BI1 & BI2) was with
gamification higher than without gamification (Figure 6). However, our hypotheses could not
be verified with tests due to the small sample in the between-subject observation.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
151
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Figure 6. Boxplot with the BI item sums of the first answers in each group to compare
between-subject differences.
Correlation analysis
To test H3, Spearman's rank correlation coefficients for FUN, BI1, BI2 and PU were
calculated (see Table 3). All group-spanning correlation coefficients were one-tailed positive
significant at ��=0.001 (with Bonferroni correction). The results show a positive correlation
between FUN and BI1 & BI2 in both cases. It can be concluded that perceived fun during the
usage (FUN) may have a positive impact on the usage intention (BI) of QS applications like
the LIM - in general (BI1) higher than in long term (BI2). This finding supports our third
hypothesis and compared with the results from the within-subject analysis, it can be said that
gamification can increase perceived fun (see Table 2), which have a direct influence on the
intention to use an application like the LIM.
Additionally, the correlations show that also PU may have a positive significant impact on BI
with higher correlation coefficients than between FUN and BI (see Table 3). These findings
follow the results of Igbaria et al. (1994), who measured a stronger influence of PU on BI
compared to FUN on BI.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
152
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Table 3. Group-spanning Spearman-Rho correlations between FUN, PU, BI1 and BI2.
with gamification
group-spanning
Sums of
BI1
BI2
FUN
correlation coefficient .691***
.561***
PU
correlation coefficient .743***
.679***
without gamification
group-spanning
Sums of
BI1
BI2
FUN
correlation coefficient .732***
.572***
PU
correlation coefficient .773***
.569***
*** p < 0.001 (with Bonferroni correction). (N=70)
In addition to the analysis presented above, we conducted a group-spanning comparison of
the individual responses. This analysis yielded that 62 out of 70 participants (88.57%) are
willing to test the LIM (independent from gamification) and 64.14% (47 out of 70)
recognized clear benefits in using the LIM at study or work. Additionally, 45 out of 70
(64.28%) replied to the question ��If you would use the Meter in a lecture once a week, how
often would you login into the LIM-Community�� that they would login once a week or more
frequently.
Conclusion
In this study, we showed that gamification can increase the motivation to use QS
applications, like the LIM, to collect personal data about the own learning and improve the
learning process. The hypotheses H1-H3 were supported by the statistical analysis of the
experimental results. The general as well as the long-term intention to use the LIM were with
Journal of Literacy and Technology
153
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
gamification higher than without. According to Fishbein & Ajzen (1975) and Davis (1989) it
can be argued that these intentions have a direct impact on the actual usage. Further, it could
be shown that perceived fun has a positive effect on the motivation to use the examined PLE.
Together with the finding that perceived fun is with gamification higher than without, we can
conclude that gamification can increase the motivation for using the examined application.
Considering the gamification findings and the result that nearly 2/3 of the respondents
see clear benefits in using the LIM to improve their personal learning process, gamification
seems to be an appropriate enabler to engage people in using QS approaches as PLEs for
improving their learning experiences.
Regarding the limitations of this work, the sample size was insufficient to validate the
hypothesis with a between-subject test. However, meaningful tendency for gamification was
indicated between-subject and the performed within-subject analysis showed high significant
results. Furthermore, the measurement was hypothetical and self-reported. Larger
experiments in real settings are planned to validate our results. However, this study provides
a first important contribution to the successful use of gamification approaches for improving
interaction and supporting individual reflective learning with QS tools as PLEs.
Acknowledgement
The project ��MIRROR - Reflective learning at work" is funded under the FP7 of the
European Commission (project number 257617).
Journal of Literacy and Technology
154
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
References
Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players who suit MUDs.
Journal of
MUD research,
1(1)
, 19.
Charles, T., Bustard, D. & Black, M. (2011). Experiences of Promoting Student Engagement
Through Game-Enhanced Learning. In Ma, M., Oikonomou, A., Jain, L. (Eds.),
Serious Games and Edutainment Applications (pp. 425-445). London: Springer.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of
information technology.
MIS Quarterly, 13(3)
, 319–340.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. & Nacke, L. (2011). From Game Design Elements to
Gamefulness: Defining ��gamification��. In
Proceedings of the 15th International
Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (pp. 9-
15). New York: ACM.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975).
Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Gartner (2011).
Gartner Predicts Over 70 Percent of Global 2000 Organisations Will Have
at Least One Gamified Application by 2014. Retrieved April 20, 2013 from
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1844115.
Hicks, C. R. (1973).
Fundamental concepts in the design of experiments. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Igbaria, M., Schiffman, S. J., & Wieckowski, T. J. (1994). The respective roles of perceived
usefulness and perceived fun in the acceptance of microcomputer technology.
Behaviour & Information Technology, 13(6), 349–361.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
155
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Lee, J. & Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in Education: What, How, Why Bother?
Academic Exchange Quarterly, 15(2).
Li, I., Dey, A., & Forlizzi, J. (2010). A Stage-Based Model of Personal Informatics Systems.
In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(pp. 557-566). New York: ACM.
Malone, T. W. (1982). Heuristics for designing enjoyable user interfaces: Lessons from
computer games. In
Proceedings of the 1982 conference on Human factors in
computing systems (pp. 63-68). New York: ACM.
Mayer, M. (2009).
Warum Leben, Wenn Man Stattdessen Spielen Kann? - Kognition,
Motivation Und Emotion Am Beispiel Digitaler Spiele. Boizenburg: Werner
H��lsbusch.
McGonigal, J. (2011).
Reality is broken. New York: The Penguin Press.
Radoff, J. (2011).
Game On: Energize Your Business with Social Media Games.
Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing, Inc.
Rivera-Pelayo, V., Zacharias, V., M��ller, L., Braun, S. (2012). A Framework for Applying
Quantified Self Approaches to Support Reflective Learning. In I. A. S��nchez & P.
Isa��as (Hrsg.),
Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning
2012 (pp. 123-131). Berlin: IADIS Press.
Rivera-Pelayo, V., Munk, J., Zacharias, V., Braun, S. (2013). Live interest meter: learning
from quantified feedback in mass lectures. In
Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK '13) (pp. 23-27). New York:
ACM.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
156
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Schacht, M. & Schacht, S. (2012). Start the Game: Increasing User Experience of Enterprise
Systems Following a Gamification Mechanism. In Maedche, A., Botzenhardt, A. &
Neer, L. (Eds.),
Software for People (pp. 181-199). Heidelberg: Springer.
Schell, J. (2010).
When games invade real life. Video. Retrieved May 3, 2012 from
http://www.ted.com/talks/jesse_schell_when_games_invade_real_life.html
Thom, J., Millen, D. & DiMicco, J. (2012). Removing Gamification from an Enterprise
SNS. In
Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work (pp. 1067-1070). New York: ACM.
Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance
Model: Four longitudinal field studies.
Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Warschauer, M. (2006). Literacy and technology: Bridging the divide. In D. Gibbs & K.-L.
Krause (Eds.),
Cyberlines 2: Languages and cultures of the Internet (pp. 163-174).
Albert Park: James Nicholas.
Zichermann, G. & Cunningham, C. (2011).
Gamification by Design: Implementing Game
Mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps. New York: O��Reilly Media.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
157
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
The Mobile as an ad hoc PLE: Learning Serendipitously in Urban
Contexts
Ruthi Aladjem
Knowledge Technology Lab at Tel Aviv University
Rafi Nachmias
Full Professor of Science Education and head of the School of Education
Tel Aviv University
Journal of Literacy and Technology
158
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Abstract
In this paper we describe results from a pilot study of informal serendipitous
learning mediated by mobile technologies, during first visits to cities. Learning
interactions were explored with the underlying premise of unveiling potential paths
for consolidating discrete learning events into coherent learning experiences. The
analysis of learning interactions revealed three themes that are discussed in this paper-
the availability theme, the social theme and the awareness theme. We suggest that the
mobile device serves as an ��ad hoc PLE (Personal Learning Environment)�� that offers
on-demand support for learners, thus encouraging them to explore the city and to
utilize opportunities for learning and interaction, while accommodating their
individual needs and preferences.
Background and introduction
Travel situations have long been recognized as holding substantial learning potential
(Mitchell, 1998; Falk et al., 2012). In this context, a city may be regarded as an exploration
ground; all is new and invites explanation, clarification, and further information. A visit to a
new city carries endless learning opportunities, from the local language, the history of the
city, its architecture, art, culture and so on. Travellers are often in a state of mind that makes
them eager to learn and explore (Mitchell, 1998; Falk et al., 2012) and learning takes an
informal, serendipitous nature. By informal learning, we are referring to learning incidents
that are not planned nor organized (Kleis et al., 1973); the term serendipitous learning
accentuates the incidental and unplanned aspect of informal learning processes, though it
does not suggest that learning is random, as it is in fact determined by the learner��s goals,
interests, and prior knowledge (Buchem, 2011).
Journal of Literacy and Technology
159
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Before the age of smart mobile devices, tour books, tour guides, and paper maps
served as the common support tools, for visitors looking to explore and learn more about their
travel destinations. Information was thus limited to the scope of the book, preselected by an
editor or an expert guide. A chance encounter with a point of interest that was not deemed as
significant enough to appear in a tour book might have ended with no further investigation.
As a result of the lack of immediate information, the learning interest that was evoked by the
point of interest, might not have been fulfilled or further explored. This situation has changed
dramatically since the oncoming of the social web and the advent of mobile devices, no
longer is there a single source of information or lack of immediate support. The mobile��s
perpetual connectivity allows access as well as to information at anytime, anywhere, and on
any topic of interest, as well as active contribution (Jenkins et al., 2006; Kress & Pachler,
2007; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). Furthermore, the mobile device has become one with
the learner, carried everywhere at all times, holding vast potential for supporting learning in
authentic settings and contexts. Learners are free to follow their personal interests, to define
their own learning goals and to engage in active, collaborative, learning processes among
learners with shared interests (Dieterle, Dede, & Schrier, 2007; Laurillard, 2007; Sharples,
Taylor, & Vavoula, 2007).
The notion of a Personal Learning Environment (PLE) has been described from
multiple perspectives with varying definitions and design directions (Henri & Charlier, 2010;
Zhou, 2013). Adhering to a view of a PLE as an approach to the use of technologies, that is
��comprised of all the different tools we use in our everyday life for learning�� (Attwell, 2007),
we suggest a view of mobile devices as potential ad hoc PLEs for travel situations; comprised
of tools selected by learners according to their context dependent learning needs, as they arise
in real time. Mobile services and technologies such as navigation tools, social networks and
Journal of Literacy and Technology
160
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
location-based applications, although not created specifically for learning purposes, may
allow learners to engage in knowledge interactions through activities such as sharing,
searching and reflection. By selecting applications that support their personal, context
dependent needs as they emerge in real time, learners may potentially turn a city visit into a
personal, active, and collaborative learning experience.
Following, we will describe the research approach of our pilot study, aiming at
identifying and analysing informal serendipitous learning processes during urban
explorations, supported by mobile devices. We will than present the main findings and
discuss possible implications.
Research approach
The pilot study was conducted as part of a PhD research, aimed at identifying and
analysing key factors that play a significant role in incidental, serendipitous learning
processes, supported by mobile technologies. The pilot takes a qualitative, learner-centred,
approach that includes in-depth interviews with 10 early adopters of technology, who own a
smart mobile device. Early adopters are often characterized with such personality traits as
personal innovativeness, active information seeking, and intrinsic motivation for exploration
(Agarwal & Prasad, 1998; Straub, 2009). These characteristics seem congruent with desirable
qualities of 21st century learners and with the socio-constructivist ideal of an active learner
involved in constructing knowledge while interacting with a community in authentic settings
(Sharples, Taylor & Vavoula, 2007; Wenger, 1998). For the purpose of this study, any
knowledge interaction that occurs outside of a formal learning environment is considered an
informal learning incident (Kleis et al., 1973; Livingstone, 1999). The research questions
focused on the ways in which mobile tools and applications are being used in order to
construct knowledge in authentic settings (the city). The analysis of learning interactions also
Journal of Literacy and Technology
161
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
considered the learning needs that emerged during the visit, the tools and applications that
were used in order to support those needs, the types of learning activities (for example,
��push�� contributions or ��pull�� requests) and the contexts in which the activities took place.
Results
All subjects owned a smart mobile device (six subjects owned an iOS device and four
owned an Android device). Subjects gave a detailed description of up to three recent visits
that they had made to new cities (i.e., cities that they had not visited before), bringing the
number of cities visited to a total of 21. All subjects reported that they had chosen to use their
mobile device as the sole tool for support and communication during their visit; no additional
artefacts (such as a paper map, a tour book, or a tour guide) were used.
During their visit, subjects were continually engaged with their personal mobile environment,
using versatile mobile applications; different applications were selected alternately to support
different needs. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss all applications in detail, but
they included: location-based navigation and information services (such as
Google Maps,
Yelp, TripAdvisor, Foursquare, Browser Search), social interaction tools (such as
Facebook,
Twitter, Google Talk), tools for real time documentation (such as
Instagram, flickr, Evernote),
real time scheduling services (such as
bus and subway schedules), and translation tools (such
as
Google Translate, iTranslate). It was found that the tool selection was not necessarily
based on the technical features that the applications offered but was context dependent;
different applications often carried similar features (for example, both
Facebook and
Foursquare have location-based features and support ��check-ins��) but were used in different
contexts and situations for different purposes. The determining factor seemed to be the way in
which subjects interpreted the main purpose of the application and what they had felt would
best suit their needs (for example, checking in on
Facebook was described as an effective
Journal of Literacy and Technology
162
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
means for sharing with friends back home while checking in on
Foursquare was often done
for pertinent purposes such as seeing if there were other users at the current location and
initiating new encounters).
Three major themes emerged from the analysis of learning interactions: the availability
theme, the social theme, and the awareness theme. A description of each theme follows.
The availability theme
Walking around the city carrying a mobile device means that one is perpetually
connected. Subjects had mentioned that the fact that information and communication are
readily available and only a click away, affected their behaviours and decision-making
processes. This seems, first and foremost, to have affected their personal sense of control over
their environment. For example, one subject mentioned that ��just knowing that I could not
really get lost, allowed me to get lost in the streets, wandering aimlessly without a worry and
just looking around. ��
Availability also affected the perception of the need to plan ahead; most subjects reported that
they preplanned almost nothing for their trip because they knew that they would have their
mobile with them. Only one subject stated that he regularly prepares a list of locations to
visit; based on prior research and recommendations, he places the list on a mobile map that
he uses to navigate in the city. However, he also noted, ��If the applications worked perfectly,
all the items on my list would appear on them anyway and this might have been redundant.��
Availability also allowed subjects to make decisions in real time; in several cases, subjects
received recommendations for nearby locations from friends who realized that they were
nearby (as they saw their check-ins). In one instance, a subject checked in while in the north
of Paris and a friend commented that he must visit the famous P��re Lachaise cemetery; this
Journal of Literacy and Technology
163
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
visit later led to a college project on Oscar Wilde (who is buried at the cemetery) that was
based on the information collected and shared during this unplanned encounter.
Finally, availability allowed for benefiting from location-based services and for the
ability to learn in context. In fact, context was often the trigger for learning interaction, as one
subject mentioned, ��If I come across anything that seems interesting, I immediately look for
more information by searching, posting a question on Twitter or simply by photographing,
tagging and sharing.�� Lack of an available connection and the high cost of mobile internet
were mentioned as a major issue. Having an internet (Wi-Fi) connection was mentioned in
the interviews as a basic and critical need; as one subject mentioned, "I am lost without my
mobile and it must be connected all the time- I can��t imagine my world without it��.
The social theme
The ability to stay in touch with one��s close social group (friends and family) as well
as to be able to receive information from and contribute to a larger community, were
mentioned throughout the interviews. Subjects had reported versatile ways and contexts in
which they chose to use the social features available in different mobile applications.
Subjects, especially if traveling alone, kept a continuous communication with their close
social circle; sharing and receiving feedback. This contributed to a feeling of a shared
learning experience; as one subject noted, she felt as if ��my friends were taking part in my
expedition, even if they were not technically there.��
The ability to benefit from social support formed on the basis of context or need was also
mentioned; subjects regularly used location-based applications that are based on community
contribution such as
Yelp or
Foursquare, to receive information on discoveries that they had
Journal of Literacy and Technology
164
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
reached. Sharing, sometimes led to unexpected discoveries; for example, ��I posted a picture
of a caf�� and a friend told me that an art gallery next door was just opening an exhibition.��
Finally, though sharing was usually done in real time, social activity allowed subjects to
return, virtually, to discoveries that they have shared; subjects also reported that they
sometimes accessed previously shared items in order to add titles or insert tags.
The awareness theme
As a result of their intensive use of mobile social tools while exploring the city,
subjects become more aware of the reciprocal nature of their activities. Subjects mentioned
that they came to realize that their actions had more than a personal meaning and that their
activities, such as sharing, contributing information, and answering questions, could affect
others. One subject, for example, summed up by saying that ��just as I have been depending
on the courtesy of strangers so can my actions have meaning to others and not just to my
personal group of friends.�� Realizing that their activities resonate, affected subjects�� long-
term tendency to be actively involved in knowledge contribution after the visit ended.
Another subject said, ��I had used
foursquare years ago, when it was launched but after a
while didn��t really see the point anymore and stopped, after my trip I make a point of using it
again as I realize that others will read and benefit from my reviews.��
In summary, it was found that the use of the mobile as an ad hoc personal learning
environment has contributed to a shift in the relationship between learners and the object of
learning, while exploring the city. The mobile has contributed to an increased sense of control
over the surroundings and allowed for true immersion with the dynamic city and all that it has
to offer. The mobile device also allowed learners to interact with their community, as part of
the learning process and had increased their awareness of the fact that their contributions can
Journal of Literacy and Technology
165
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
resonate and can benefit others, thus encouraging them to engage in knowledge building
processes even once their visit was over.
Discussion and conclusions
The pilot study illuminates the transformation that mobile technology has brought to
the learning experience during visits to a new city. The study also highlights ways in which
the mobile device can serve as a dynamic learning environment that is activated and
controlled by learners, for exploration and learning. The wide array of tools and applications
available to learners, all under the ��umbrella�� of the mobile device and the choice of this
technology as the sole learning environment for exploring the city, suggest that the mobile
serves as an on-demand personal learning environment, an ad hoc PLE for the visit.
Effectively, learners are taking an active part in designing their PLEs (Henri & Charlier,
2010) by selecting and utilizing dynamic components based upon their contextual needs and
preferences, as they emerge in real time.
The mobile, serving as an ad hoc PLE, supports a serendipitous learning process.
Learners do not need to, and often chooses not to preplan their visit, because of their reliance
on the perpetual connection to contextual sources of information and to their own
communities. This ad hoc PLE supports dynamic learning processes with extensive
opportunities for immediacy that is needed both for the learners�� changing needs as well as
due to the city��s static and always changing nature. With no predetermined plan and no expert
to lead the way, learners are in control of the learning process; live concerts, parades, traffic
jams and essentially everything that happens in the city, is injected, in real time, into the
exploration process. Though a single interaction may seem trivial, this ad hoc PLE essentially
connects discrete learning interactions onto a comprehensive personal learning experience
Journal of Literacy and Technology
166
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
(Aladjem & Nachmias, 2011), each interaction may lead to several potential trajectories and a
final learning path can only be sketched aftermath. With a feeling of control over their
environment, largely due to the availability of resources and the social support received
through the mobile PLE, learners are free to fully experience the city without worrying about
getting lost. Learners undergo a truly serendipitous and immersive learning experience by
engaging in authentic, contextual learning interactions. Personal points of interest that were
not likely to appear in an expert tour book, now become meaningful learning activities as
they are shared and interacted upon, thus changing the level of granularity of learning and
increasing the array of potential learning triggers.
Learners are continually engaged in social collaborative learning activities such as
responding to comments, tagging previously shared items or adding titles, these activities
lead them to virtually revisit previously shared discoveries and view them through the
diversified eyes of the community. Revisiting past learning experiences allow learners to
engage in reflective and ultimately more profound learning experiences (Dieterle, Dede &
Schrier, 2007; Sharples, Taylor & Vavoula, 2007). Due to their reliance on communal
contributions, learners become increasingly aware of the notion that their own activities can
hold more than just a personal value, realizing that their contributions resonate and can be of
benefit to other learners in a virtual community. It can be said that through their own
activities learners come to realize that they are a part of a dynamic collaborative knowledge
construction process and that they are not just consumers of knowledge, but are also
assigning meaning, sharing with the virtual community and changing the balance between
contribution and receipt of information (Kress & Pachler, 2007; Scardamalia & Bereiter,
2006).
Journal of Literacy and Technology
167
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
In conclusion, a visit to a new city is a highly intensive and condensed exploratory
experience that may serve as a microcosms and a reference point for demonstrating the
potential of the mobile as an informal learning tool. The mobile device has transformed the
experience of serendipitous urban exploration and the ways in which learners interact with
their surroundings and construct knowledge by serving as a powerful ad hoc PLE.
Serendipitous learning processes could potentially be directed, with the support of the mobile
PLE, to revolve around disciplines and areas that are relevant not only to informal, but also to
formal learning objectives (such a History or Language Studies). Finally, when considering
the city of the future we envision a city visit as a truly personalized learning experience, we
believe that urban planners and stakeholders should consider the need to cater for ��mobile
tourism�� not only by making sure that an internet connection (WiFi) is freely available
everywhere but mostly by planning mobile services that take into account and accommodate
the personal needs of visitors interested in exploring and learning about the city.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
168
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
References
Agarwal, R. & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal
innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems
Research, 9(2), 204-215.
Aladjem, R., & Nachmias, R. (2011). Constructing knowledge via mobile devices–one
interaction at a time. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(6),
599-607.
Attwell, G. (2007). Personal Learning Environments--The future of eLearning? eLearning
Papers, 2(1), 1-7.
Buchem, I. (2011). Serendipitous learning: Recognizing and fostering the potential of
microblogging. Form@ re-Open Journal per la formazione in rete, 11(74), 7-16.
Dieterle, E., Dede, C., & Schrier, K. (2007). "Neomillennial" learning styles propagated by
wireless handheld devices, In Lytras, M. and Naeve, A. (Eds.) Ubiquitous and
pervasive knowledge and learning management: semantics, social networking and
new media to their full potential, Pennsylvania: Idea Group, Inc., 35-66.
Falk, J. H., Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Benckendorff, P. (2012). Travel and learning: A
neglected tourism research area. Annals of Tourism Research,39(2), 908-927.
Henri, F., & Charlier, B. (2010). Personal learning environment: A concept, an application, or
a self-designed instrument?. In Information Technology Based Higher Education and
Training (ITHET), 2010 9th International Conference on (pp. 44-51). IEEE.
Jenkins, H. Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robinson, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting
the challenges of participatory culture: media education for the 21st century,
Journal of Literacy and Technology
169
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
MacArthur Foundation. Available at:
mitpress.mit.edu/books/full_pdfs/Confronting_the_Challenges.pdf
Kleis, J., Lang, L., Mietus, J.R., & Tiapula, F.T.S. (1973). Toward a contextual definition of
nonformal education. Nonformal Education Discussion Paper. Michigan: Michigan
State University, 3-6.
Kress, G. & Pachler, N. (2007). Thinking about the 'M-' in mobile learning. In Norman, A. &
Pearce, J. (Eds.) Conference proceedings: long and short papers. 6th Annual
Conference on Mobile Learning, 199–209.
Laurillard, D. (2007). Pedagogical forms for mobile learning. In Pachler, N. (Ed.) Mobile
learning: towards a research agenda, London: WLE Centre, IOE, 153-175.
Livingstone, D. W. (1999). Exploring the icebergs of adult learning: Findings of the first
Canadian survey of informal learning practices. Canadian Journal for the Study of
Adult Education, 13(2), 49–72.
Mitchell, R.D. (1998). Learning through play and pleasure travel: Using play literature to
enhance research into touristic learning. Current Issues in Tourism, 1:2, 176-188
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, and
technology. In Sawyer, K. (Ed.) Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, New
York: Cambridge University Press, 97-118.
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In
Andrews, R. & Haythornthwaite, C. (Eds.) The Sage handbook of eLearning research,
London: Sage, 221-247.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
170
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for
informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625-649.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Zhou, H. (2013). Understanding Personal Learning Environment: a literature review on
elements of the concept. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference Vol .1, 1161-1164.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
171
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
An Exploratory Study of the Personal Learning Environments of Security
and Investigation Professionals
Antony E. Ratcliffe, M.Ed.
PhD Student, Institute of Learning Innovation
University of Leicester
tony@ratcliffe.ca
Journal of Literacy and Technology
172
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Abstract
This paper describes and discusses how security management and investigation
professionals use Personal Learning Environments (PLE) for work-related learning and
continuing professional development. It is based on an exploratory study, using a qualitative
description approach. An online questionnaire was completed by 67 study participants in 17
countries, followed by Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) or telephone interviews with 11
of them. The study found that these professionals participate in online discussion groups and
access networks and resources. Their collaborative activities in online spaces are limited for
reasons that include security, privacy, authenticity of information, and employer restriction
concerns. Many therefore may limit opportunities to learn from their local, national, and
international peers within PLEs. This also limits discussions of digital literacy skills that
might otherwise be expected. Study participants were limited to those who responded to a
request for participation posted in online discussion groups. Further research may identify
those who are more actively involved in online collaboration and identify reasons for
different levels of participation. Presenting case studies of successful collaborative efforts
may encourage others in the occupation, enhance continuing professional development, and
contribute to the research literature connecting PLEs with careers. This study contributes to
the literature on PLEs and digital literacy relating to adults and work-related learning.
Introduction
Many occupations require qualifications or certifications prior to employment.
Voluntary, or non-compulsory, certification occurs during the developing career. Employees��
educational studies may be formal, but they develop knowledge through informal learning for
certification or overall work-related learning. Away from classrooms, their study may be
independent - often in solitude - or it may include collaborative learning with others. Modern
Journal of Literacy and Technology
173
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
technologies make collaboration much easier, but employees may be missing opportunities to
enhance their collaborative informal learning through using online technologies in
occupational settings.
This paper describes and discusses how security management and investigation
professionals (security professionals) use Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) for work-
related learning and continuing professional development. Security professionals are in
management, advisory, consultant, and investigative roles with broad responsibilities for the
security and risk management of organizations. They meet face-to-face for collaboration and
learning activities, and they earn professional designations, often by self-study or with face-
to-face study groups. Some security professionals continue university education, often part-
time and at a distance. They also participate in work-related online discussion groups
(forums). The aim of this exploratory study was to gain an overview of how and the extent to
which security professionals use PLEs and what digital literacy skills they need to do so, in
advance of a broader study. The study was global because of the international nature of
business and security threats: security professionals from around the world join online groups
for informal learning.
Related literature
Personal Learning Environments and Personal Learning Networks
Online or blended (classroom and online) programs, both formal and non-formal, may
offer online platforms for resource access and discussions, known as Virtual Learning
Environments (VLEs) or Learning Management Systems (LMSs) (Wilson et al., 2006). An
alternative approach for open and informal learning is the PLE. The PLE may include a
structured VLE or LMS, but the PLE extends much further. The PLE may be described as a
concept (Attwell, 2006, 2007), considering ��a PLE is comprised of all the different tools we
Journal of Literacy and Technology
174
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
use in our everyday life for learning�� (Attwell, 2007, p. 4). Conole, de Laat, Dillon, and
Darby (2006) studied what higher education learners are using and how. Referencing this
study, Sclater (2008) stated, ��there is strong evidence that students now see the personal
computer as their primary learning tool, and this can be regarded as a de facto PLE�� (p. 5). In
addition to the personal use, institutions may offer PLEs they develop to support formal
learning (Salinas, Mar��n, & Escandell, 2011; Sclater, 2010) and commercialization occurs
with the development for educational institutions and business organizations.
At the end of the 2006 Association of Learning Technologies conference, at
Edinburgh, United Kingdom, there was no definitive position on what the PLE was (Attwell,
2007). A review of the literature by Fiedler and Väljataga (2010) revealed that even those
espousing the PLE as a concept or approach were still treating it as a technology. More
recently, Buchem, Attwell, and Torres (2011) analyzed in excess of 100 publications through
an activity theory lens, identifying that there are ��different conceptualisations of PLEs�� (p. 3)
and that ��the majority of publications come from Higher Education�� (p. 15). It may be
difficult to separate the thinking of the PLE as an approach to learning from the visualization
of how a PLE might look. Either way, a PLE ��offers a portal to the world�� (Downes, 2006)
with access to people and resources. Whether the PLE is a theory or concept, or a set of
technological tools, there are places where the learners meet. According to Gee (2004), ��an
affinity space is a place or set of places where people can affiliate with others based primarily
on shared activities, interests, and goals, not shared race, class, culture, ethnicity, or gender��
(p. 73). Jones and Hafner (2012) extended the term to ��globalized
online affinity spaces,
where people can meet, interact, and build relationships and communities�� (p. 115).
When learners come together, in person or online, they may be building a community
of practice (Wenger, 1998). A community of practice forms with three essential elements:
Journal of Literacy and Technology
175
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
domain, community, and practice (van Harmelen, 2008; Wenger, 2006). This acknowledges
that members are actively practicing in relation to a domain while working together as a
community. In contrast, an online discussion group (or meeting in person) may include those
who join but do not actively participate. Those on the periphery might not be recognized as
active members of a community, but they could be in the early stage of legitimate peripheral
participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991). According to Lave and Wenger, legitimate peripheral
participation is the process by which a new learner will join a community of practice and
develop knowledge toward ��full participation in the sociocultural practices of a community��
(Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 29). However, the mere presence of a discussion group may not
meet the criteria to be a community of practice.
The research literature covers the PLE, but there is much less written about an
associated term, Personal Learning Network (PLN) (Couros, 2010). Couros��s (2010) research
relating to ��the networked teacher�� as a PLE (p. 124) led him to state, ��My PLN definition is
simple: personal learning networks are the sum of all social capital and connections that
result in the development and facilitation of a personal learning environment�� (p. 125).
Although the literature is not definitive about the relationship of the PLE to the PLN, the
view in this study is that the PLN and personal web tools are components of the PLE, as
illustrated by Wheeler (2010). Further, the current study adopts the view of the PLE as a
concept, as previously attributed to Attwell (2007), above.
PLE and work-based learning
The study developed from an interest in how online communities, networks, and other
resources are used to support work-related learning and continuing professional development.
It sought to find evidence of PLEs and to identify the digital literacy skills presented in these
environments. The learning investigated was informal, considered by Hager and Halliday
Journal of Literacy and Technology
176
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
(2006) as that which is not formal, taking place beyond a formal structure, unintentionally or
planned. The learning could also be to supplement that of a formal learning situation offering,
��specified curriculum, taught by a designated teacher, with the extent of the learning attained
by individual learners being assessed and certified�� (Hager & Halliday, 2006, p. 29). Further,
and likely related to workplace training sessions, informal learning could support non-formal
learning that is defined as ��non-credentialised but still institutionally-based and structured��
(Selwyn, Gorard, & Furlong, 2006, p. 7).
Younger workers are not necessarily more technologically inclined and higher users of
a PLE. In one study, Attwell (2007) found that older workers made greater use of
technologies. He speculated that it might be attributed to their responsibility level, access, and
flexibility in their work. Attwell identified the potential uses of PLEs for continuing
professional development, for sharing knowledge in organizations, and for training and
development. He saw an opportunity for the PLE concept to be introduced in schools and
used in relation to work and lifelong learning. Recently, researchers considered the
competences of university students in two European countries and concluded that ��students
do not possess all needed technical, functional and social competences for self-organization,
self-learning and self-cognition�� (Ivanova & Chatti, 2011). This suggests that current workers
and new entrants to the workforce may lack the necessary skills to establish and maintain a
PLE. A discussion of digital literacy skills follows.
Adult learners participated in this research study. In andragogical theory, adults are
responsible for their own learning (Knowles, Holton III, & Swanson, 2011). Researchers such
as Brookfield (1984, 1986) and Candy (1991) addressed self-directed learning and the PLE
may be suited to support this kind of learning, whether it be informal or formal.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
177
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Digital Literacy and PLEs
An extensive review of the research literature on PLEs revealed that ��only a few
publications discuss what skills, abilities or competencies are necessary for developing and
using a PLE (e.g. Wild et al. 2009)�� (Buchem, Attwell, & Torres, 2011, p. 14). Digital literacy
skills, or digital literacies, are the skills that may be required by security professionals in an
online environment. The research literature contains numerous related terms, sometimes used
interchangeably, including digital literacies, digital literacy, and new media literacies (Coiro,
Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2008; Livingstone, Van Couvering, & Thumin, 2008). Digital
literacy skills may be considered under several frameworks. Gilster (1997) provided an early
definition of digital literacy:
��the ability to access networked computer resources and use them��.the ability to
understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide range of sources
when it is presented via computers.��(Gilster, 1997, p. 1)
According to Gilster (1997), literacy means much more than just reading, and he identified
key competencies for digital literacy: ��the ability to make informed judgments about what
you find on-line��.critical thinking��; the ability to read and move around using hypertext and
hyperlinks; and ��developing search skills�� (pp. 2-3). Gilster pointed out that the Internet
provides new ways of dealing with media (p. 34).
One digital literacy framework (referred to as media literacy) is that of Jenkins,
Clinton, Purushotma, Robison, and Weigel (2006) with 11 literacies: play, performance,
stimulation, appropriation, multitasking, distributed cognition, collective intelligence,
judgment, transmedia navigation, networking, and negotiation. These were found to be too
Journal of Literacy and Technology
178
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
detailed for the level of activity identified in this study. Rather, more adaptable to the study,
Jones and Hafner (2012) discussed practices that can be expected in the digital world: ��online
gaming, social networking, peer production and collaboration, and practices involving digital
media in the workplace�� (p. 14). They described literacies as
��the ability to creatively engage in particular social practices, to assume appropriate
social identities, and to form or maintain various social relationships��
(Jones and Hafner, 2012, p. 12)
Jones and Hafner (2012) identified that learning occurs within gaming and the
associated online affinity spaces. They referred to 3-D virtual worlds, with Second Life as an
example. While not a game in the same way as video games, virtual worlds provide
opportunities for in occupational learning. Business case studies presented by Knapp and
O'Driscoll (2010) included one that may have appeal for security professionals. ��Virtual
Border Service Officer Training�� used Second Life in an educational setting to role-play
border crossing interviews with travelers entering Canada (Jones & Hafner, 2012, pp. 158-
173). The term ��digital�� pertains to the tools being used. Social networking ��has given
internet users the ability to create
the connections between the content based on social
relationships�� (Jones & Hafner, 2012, p. 144). Haffner and Jones explain that ��ordinary users
of the internet�� are able to make connections between people and the content that has been
created online.
Digital Literacy and Security Professionals
As security professionals find or create information of interest, it can easily be shared
with others. By its nature, social networking is often open and not anonymous, allowing the
Journal of Literacy and Technology
179
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
participant to be identified and establish credibility. Jones and Hafner (2012) addressed
privacy and not maintaining the anonymity that the Internet can otherwise provide. However,
as discussed later in this paper, the study reveals that there are individuals who would prefer
not to share their views openly. Not sharing may impact the attitude toward, and development
of, digital literacy practices.
The skills of collaboration and peer production extend the ability of individuals to co-
produce globally with colleagues. Through social networking technologies, the feeling of
remoteness can be reduced (Jones & Hafner, 2012). As in more traditional groups, not all will
want to participate equally, due to a lack of interest and/or skills. Jones and Hafner (2012)
described benefits and challenges of collaboration and peer production. They defined peer
production, or commons-based peer production in full, as ��massive numbers of people, who
are distributed across the globe and connected to each other by digital networks, work
together voluntarily to promote projects that they are interested in�� (Jones & Hafner, 2012 p.
158). An example is Wikipedia.
Digital literacies at work pertain to the digital work environment. The Jones and
Hafner (2012) framework recognized the information age, the global distribution of work,
remote workers, team work models, and the workers who work on contract or encounter
frequent job changes. Employers and employees are impacted by the needs and opportunities
to adapt that are created.
Research Questions
Security professionals could not be expected to know the term, PLE, found in the
research literature. It was anticipated that they could describe how they use online
communities, tools, resources, and networks for their work-related learning and continuing
professional development. It was also anticipated that digital literacy skills and practices
Journal of Literacy and Technology
180
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
would be identified. Considering the PLE as a concept, the research questions were to
determine how PLEs are being established by security professionals who use online
technologies in ways that support their learning. This included the tools they use, their
networks, how they have developed skills, and whether they are actually taking advantage of
opportunities to learn within a PLE.
Personal observations and knowledge of professional development in a few different
occupations revealed that professional development programs, particularly through self-study,
do not actively support or encourage what would be seen within a PLE. It was also known
that security professionals network in person and online, but the extent of the application of
online activity to learning was open to exploration. The main research question asked was:
How are security management and investigation professionals using personal learning
environments (PLEs) and digital literacies for work-related learning and, in particular, for
continuing professional development?
The sub questions were:
1 What web-based tools and resources are used as part of the PLE of participants?
2 What are the digital literacy skills required to function within a PLE?
3 How have participants developed digital literacy skills?
4 Are participants contributing within a participatory culture and online affinity spaces?
5 How is continuing professional development within work-related learning settings
being supported through the use of a PLE?
Methodological Approach
The exploratory study occurred from August 19, 2012, until October 19, 2012, in two
phases using an online questionnaire and online interviews. The results were to inform the
research methodology, design, and data collection methods for a subsequent larger study.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
181
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Research Design
The design aimed to explore the security management and investigation community,
as widely as possible, to identify how security professionals use PLEs and to inform the
design of the subsequent study. As a qualitative study, text responses in the questionnaire and
semi-structured interview questions sought rich data. It was exploratory, so the qualitative
description methodology provided ��straight descriptions of phenomena�� (Sandelowski, 2000,
p. 339).
Requests for participation were posted to 13 online forums (or groups) frequented by
security management or investigation professionals globally, 12 on LinkedIn and one on the
website of a professional association. LinkedIn is a professional networking, social media
site. Members of LinkedIn maintain public profiles and may participate in a wide range of
discussion groups. Four of the 13 LinkedIn groups were small and later determined to be
inactive.
Online questionnaire
An online questionnaire invited participants to participate in an interview during
either the exploratory study reported here or the later study. Thirty-five participants agreed to
be interviewed. Purposive sampling selected questionnaire respondents who indicated they
had something to share. Small batches of interview requests followed until 10 had been
completed. An eleventh participant with limited access to telephone and online
communication responded to questions by email. A Canadian service hosted the online
questionnaire, and a summary of the research project was posted in online discussion groups
to solicit participation in this study. An information sheet and an informed consent form
preceded the questions. Questions asked, mapped to the research questions, were as follows:
Journal of Literacy and Technology
182
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
1. What web-based tools and resources are used as part of the Personal Learning
Environment of participants?
• Which devices do you use to access the internet?
• Are there restrictions on any of the software programs or applications you use for
learning purposes that makes them inaccessible in your workplace? Please explain.
• Beyond software and applications, are there other restrictions on any of the computers
or hardware devices you use that prevent you from using them in your workplace for
learning purposes? Please explain.
• How often do you participate in each of these online activities, for personal,
professional, or learning related purposes?
• Please describe any other online activities you do for personal, professional, or
learning related purposes and/or provide any comments on the above responses.
• Which social media profiles do you maintain for personal and/or professional reasons,
and what is your frequency of use?
• Please identify any 'other' from the previous question along with frequency of use.
• How do you use social media in relation to your continuing professional
development?
• Do you have a network of contacts not at your office with whom you communicate
for work-related learning questions or relating to your continuing professional
development?
• Other than face-to-face, how do you connect with your network of contacts when you
have questions relating to learning?
2. What are the digital literacy skills required to function within a Personal Learning
Environment? and 3. How have participants developed digital literacy skills?
• How comfortable are you with the following activities? (12 items identified)
• Please comment on activities that you do not do or with which you have low comfort.
It would be helpful to know your reasons.
• How have you developed your computer skills to their present level?
• When I encounter a challenge with online technologies, I tend to be one who will...
• If being introduced to new online technologies or skills to assist my continuing
professional development, I would prefer to experience them...
4. Are participants contributing within a participatory culture and online affinity
spaces?
• Are you involved in an online mentoring relationship?
• What are the online tools and technologies that you use for the mentoring activity?
• Do you participate in collaborative problem-solving other than working face-to-face?
Journal of Literacy and Technology
183
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
• How do you use technology to participate in collaborative problem solving?
• Can you think of something you have created in an online environment for sharing
with others?
• If you answered 'yes' to the previous question, what did you create?
5. How is continuing professional development within work-related learning settings
being supported through the use of a Personal Learning Environment?
• Can you give an example(s) of how your learning has been assisted through online
technology that would not have otherwise been possible or as effective? Please
describe.
Online interviews
Personal interviews were conducted using Skype, a Voice Over Internet Protocol
(VOIP). Participants chose videoconference, audio, or to receive a call to their telephone.
With the participant��s consent, each call was recorded by using a Skype add-on tool. A basic
thematic analysis aided by a qualitative analysis program followed interview transcription.
The following six guiding questions were asked to further investigate the research questions:
1 How would you describe your work-based learning over the past two years? How has
it changed from the past?
2 I��m interested in the tools and technologies you use in relation to work-based
learning, informal in particular. How have they changed, and how do you see them
changing in the future years?
3 How about your social networks? Can you describe your networks and how they are
used for work-based learning? How have they evolved with new technologies?
4 In our digital world, it is easy to create learning resources and share them with others.
What stands out that you have seen, whether you used it or not?
5 Again, think of digital resource opportunities, what have you created that has been
shared and reused by others?
6 From your perspective, what is really being done well digitally in relation to learning?
What remains to be done?
Journal of Literacy and Technology
184
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
The term ��work-based learning�� was used during the interviews. However, ��work-related�� has
appeared more appropriate. The explanation given to participants at the time of the interview
clarified the focus on learning related to work, whether at a worksite or at another location
including traveling.
Ethical Considerations
This study was in keeping with the University of Leicester Research Ethics Code of
Practice, and the Association of Internet Researchers provides guidance for using online
research methods through an email discussion list and an ethics guide (Association of Internet
Researchers, 2012; Hooley, Marriott, & Wellens, 2012). Study participants gave informed
consent after reading an information sheet as the start of the online questionnaire. The survey
software, to support anonymity, did not collect the Internet address of the country of
questionnaire access. Participants identified themselves at the end of the questionnaire only if
they agreed to a personal interview. They could also email the researcher separately to avoid
linking a name to the questionnaire.
Results
The exploratory study confirmed the ability to access participants, there is an interest
in the research, and there is more to learn that will inform the security management
community and academia. This section presents the data obtained during the questionnaire
and interview phases.
Survey results
The questionnaire asked 22 questions to answer the research questions. Access to the
online questionnaire occurred 137 times from August 19, 2012, until September 7, 2012 (20
calendar days). As the first step, 103 individuals acknowledged the informed consent, of
which 67 (65%) completed the questionnaire for inclusion in the results. Thirty-five (52%) of
Journal of Literacy and Technology
185
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
those who completed indicated their willingness to participate in an individual interview
during the exploratory study or main study.
Questionnaire participants represented 17 countries (Table 1).
Table 1
Country of Residence of Questionnaire Participants
Country
Number Percentage
Canada
24
36
United Kingdom
15
22
United States of America
7
10
Australia
5
7
Bahrain, New Zealand, South
Africa (2 from each country)
6
9
Burma, Cambodia, China,
France, Hong Kong, India,
Baltic States, Mexico,
Romania, Russia (1 from each
country)
10
15
Note. Rounding error of 1%.
All but one completing the questionnaire identified their ages (Table 2). Only one
indicated being below the age of 35 years.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
186
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Table 2
Age Range of Questionnaire Participants
Age range
Number Percentage
25 to 34
1
1
35 to 44
15
22
45 to 54
29
43
55 to 64
18
27
65+
3
4
Not answered
1
1
Note. Rounding error of 2%.
The participants were predominantly male (Table 3).
Table 3
Gender of Questionnaire Participants
Gender
Number Percentage
Male
60
90
Female
6
9
Not answered
1
1
Interview results
Ten individual interviews were conducted from October 1 to 19, 2012, and an
eleventh participant answered questions by email due to limited availability for telephone or
Journal of Literacy and Technology
187
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
online conferencing. Interview participants had identified themselves in the online
questionnaire. Communications choices involved connecting on Skype with
videoconferencing, connecting with just audio, or receiving a telephone call. Four chose to
use videoconferencing, but for one a poor connection resulted in a Skype to telephone call
instead. Six others received Skype to telephone calls. All 10 participants provided permission
to record the interviews. The 10 interviews ranged in length from 21 to 78 minutes, with
participants from Canada (60%, n=6), the UK (20%, n=2), South Africa (10%, n=1), and
Baltic States (10%, n=1). The email interview involved a USA professional.
Data analysis
In this exploratory study, two major themes emerged: online activities and online
challenges. The activities are what security professionals do and how they do it. The
challenges encompass what they do not do and why they do not do it. Some coding was
required to sort the data, so this was accomplished using NVivo for qualitative data analysis.
The coding was kept broad to avoid ��premature coding and sorting [which] are serious threats
to analysis when researchers abdicate their full responsibility�� (Thorne, 2008, p. 144).
Online activities
Most participants responded to researcher requests in LinkedIn discussion group
messages. While 67% read discussion messages regularly, only 13% responded to messages
regularly. The other choices were ��infrequently,�� ��tried it but stopped,�� or ��never.��
Questionnaire participants responded about their involvement with specific online activities.
The percentage represents those who do the activity regularly:
• Starting discussion topics by linking to an article, story, etc. (15%)
• Writing blog posts (7%)
• Posting updates on Twitter, Facebook, or other social media (29%)
• Gaming such as World of Warcraft (3%)
• Activities in a virtual world, such as Second Life (1%)
Journal of Literacy and Technology
188
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Participants completing the questionnaire identified other online activities with which they
are involved:
• Email
• Work related research
• Course work including research, online study portals, podcasts, course discussion
boards
• Online training programs for software and products
• Skype for overseas contacts
• Webinars, webcasts, and podcasts
• Virtual conferences
• YouTube for research including conferences and speakers
• Educational programming from Khan Academy and iTunesU
• News from local, national, and international sources
• Reading
• Restricted professional discussion groups or sites
• Internet communities, including Reddit.com
• Language learning
• Completing professional certifications
• Mentoring
• Solving client problems beyond own experience
• Sharing organization knowledge with the public
• Maintaining currency in relation to industry trends
• Relationships with learners when teaching within online course platform
• Finding hard copy text books to order, preferring over e-books
Interview participants added the following online activities:
• Presentations from BrightTALK and TED Talks
• Global communication
• Making learning continuous, even after the course ends
• Accessing the opinions of many people, from different sides of an issue
• Course learning from anywhere
• Email distribution lists, as frequent as several times daily
• Using videos from YouTube when teaching a subject area in which instructor does not
have expertise
• Text alerts of major happenings before the news
The questionnaire and interviews explored what participants had created and shared.
Responses included preparing materials for courses and workshops and sharing them online.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
189
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Participants mentioned developing websites (for internal use by their organization and for
public consumption), databases, and a Wiki (an online document that can be edited by
others). Some wrote papers, articles, and blog posts.
Participation on LinkedIn was the most prominent online activity to consume
information and connect with industry colleagues. Email (97%) and telephone (81%) are the
most prominent methods of contact with colleagues and others. The preference for email
allows messages to be selectively and easily sent to a large number. Privacy of the
communication was a concern. Sending by email avoids others knowing about the nature of
the enquiry when not appropriate, rather than asking within discussions groups. One security
manager commented on networks for learning:
��Professional network sites like LinkedIn provide great opportunities for learning whether
through posting links to articles, requesting assistance with research, or generating
discussions. It makes it much easier to get a variety of perspectives and find out the
differences and similarities in performing security work in different industries as well as
different countries. Technology has evolved to the point where we can carry on real-time
conversations with professionals in other time zones and can get immediate assistance as
situations unfold instead of having to wait for ��normal business hours�� and adjust for
time differences. Security never operates solely on normal business hours.��
Security manager, USA
Online challenges
The second theme was the challenges of online activities. This section covers security
professionals�� decisions to avoid or minimize activities. It also includes restrictions placed
upon security professionals in the workplace. A small number saw no need for online
Journal of Literacy and Technology
190
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
activities. Their comments included satisfaction with current methods, no need for online
activities to develop a network, and no need for immediate information feeds. Online
activities were a waste of time for some due to being of limited value and because of the
amount of ��noise�� created. One participant made the following comment and highlighted the
fear of employer criticism:
��I find that the forums are generally limited to people who are out of work and consultants
who only speak for themselves, and people from large organizations don't necessarily
participate because they don't feel that they are only speaking for themself, they don't want
to be accountable for the things they are saying in those forums. But other than that, I
really enjoy them, and for that reason I don't participate. I don't need my human resource
department calling me about something I put online.��
Security manager, Canada
Having limited time was a reason for reduced online activities. One participant stated that it
was important for something to catch his attention and motivate immediate action. Another
was attracted to activities that involved connecting with someone in a ��leadership role.�� One
participant expressed a lack of knowledge of what is available online, being only aware of
webinars. Other comments included:
• ����entertainment�� social media��a waste of time��
• ��I don��t tweet, I think it��s idiotic frankly.��
• ��I dislike social media.��
• ��I think blogs are a waste of time: reading about some idiot and what he had for
breakfast: nobody cares.��
• ��I don't care about somebody's personal opinion on something. Like to me it ranks up
there with blogging as a complete waste of time.��
• ��Pre-recorded content webinars, I think are disastrous.��
Journal of Literacy and Technology
191
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
One participant observed: ��Formal society groupings (corporations, governments,
universities) have not fully grasped the big change in distributive, collaborative learning and
how that will affect people in everyday real world.�� Another participant mentioned that social
media are banned at work for productivity-related reasons. Another participant said that
excessive personal use would result in a discussion with the employee about the use.
Employer or other workplace restrictions were numerous. They included the following:
• rules against non-business use
• prohibitions against downloads or the use of external and devices
• emergency only use of the internet on mobile devices
• restrictions to some websites and applications
• special permissions required
• personal devices not allowed
• firewalls, outdated technologies, and compatibility issues not allowing access
• equipment such as a webcam not provided
Some participant and employer concerns related to security and sensitive activities.
Concern about computer hacking and espionage encouraged the use of internal resources and
prohibited USB devices in one company. Another participant spoke of vulnerability if able to
access computers and turn on the camera remotely. There is concern about data remaining in
existence and who might have unintended access to it. Identity theft is feared. Authenticity is
also a concern. Before relying on information found on the Internet, participants wanted to
validate the source. This was not always easy to do. A concern related to someone publishing
online using the identity of another. One participant suggested that a reputable organization
should verify the credibility of what might be course offerings. Another participant was
confident with his personal ability to identify suspicious material but added he could not be
certain. These challenges appear to be beyond those strictly related to learning, but they may
impact opportunities to access online communities, resources, and networks.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
192
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Discussion
The main research question asked, ��How are security management and investigation
professionals using PLEs and digital literacies for work-related learning and, in particular, for
continuing professional development?�� This question presumed that research study
participants used PLEs and would demonstrate digital literacy skills, particularly since they
were primarily recruited online. The research study questionnaire and individual interviews
revealed a limited range of online learning activities, but the data provided a start at
understanding why such activities might be limited or focused in online discussion groups.
Sub question 1 asked, ��What web-based tools and resources are used as part of the
PLE of participants?�� There were no surprises; they use computers and mobile devices for
Internet access, email, and telephone calls. Sub question 2 was, ��What are the digital literacy
skills required to function within a PLE?�� The research literature answers this and provides
skill frameworks. The study yielded limited finding of such skills, as participant activities
were often limited to reading rather than identifying examples of activities such as peer
production, collaboration, and gaming.
Sub question 3 enquired, ��How have participants developed digital literacy skills?��
They identified that they developed their skills attending courses, getting help from friends,
family, and work colleagues, searching the World Wide Web, reading, exploring, and
experimenting. There appears to be no lack of ability with the presence of willingness and
support. Confidence was present: participants felt able to learn whatever was required in the
ability to learn whatever is required for operating proprietary systems and following
protocols. There was very little interest in gaming and virtual worlds, though one participant
raised them as essential for teaching certain skills.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
193
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Sub question 4 was, ��Are participants contributing within a participatory culture and
online affinity spaces?�� They appear to be online, but for many the level of activity is low.
While SMIPs read and respond to discussion messages, and they might start discussions,
many contribute infrequently. They are more likely to be consumers of information rather
than producers or co-producers. Two participants expressed a preference for seeing the work
of organizations and ��thought leaders�� with noted expertise.
Sub question 5 asked, ��How is continuing professional development within work-
related learning settings being supported through the use of a PLE?�� Discussion groups and
various online resources were sought when information needs arose. Some SMIPs did
contribute resources for others, but a primary activity was consuming the available
information. This suggests a different approach may be needed in the main study to identify
possible examples of those creating and sharing content.
Prominent themes were security, privacy, and authenticity concerns in addition to not
seeing a need for online activities, having a lack of interest, and having no time. These
concerns are personal for many, but employers often have equipment, software, and access
restrictions. Security threats are an ongoing concern. Daly (2013) explained that the very act
of sharing socially is what can expose an individual to threat, such as providing personal
information that could be used to create a security breach. These threats can indirectly result
in a minimized use of online resources if the general use of computers and other devices is
curtailed.
Despite the factors described that limited the activities, 67 participants provided data
relating to their online activities. Online communities, tools, networks, and other resources
are used for purposes of work-related learning and continuing professional development. A
high use of the telephone and email may represent collaboration occurring in non-public
Journal of Literacy and Technology
194
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
spaces with 2 or more participants; however, the reported use of discussion groups
demonstrates a lot of reading of the news and information posted by others.
Conclusion
This was an exploratory study of how security professionals are using their PLEs and
digital literacy skills for work-related learning and continuing professional development. It
was global and involved a total of 67 study participants from 17 countries. All completed an
online questionnaire, and 10 participated in individual interviews, online or by telephone. An
eleventh study participant provided input by email.
In the questionnaire, study participants provided information that included devices
they use, their technological skills, online activities, networks, collaboration, and learning.
Those interviewed were asked more about their learning, tools and technologies, social
networks, learning resources, and digital literacy practices. The participants, as security
professionals, clearly accessed discussion groups and other resources for information to keep
up in the industry or to answer questions that arise. Some create information for others,
including linking to news stories and the blog post of themselves and others. Collaboration
also takes place in private settings with the more traditional technologies of telephone and
email. Some participants expressed their reluctance and caution when sharing in online
spaces. More study participants could be seen to be consumers and users of information
rather than creators. The data did not provide a lot of examples of security professionals
contributing within the participatory environment. This might be attributed to many security
professionals being in the early stage of legitimate peripheral participation, which may lead to
greater participation as knowledge and comfort increases. At that time, examples of digital
literacy practices may be more evident. This may provide examples to encourage other
professionals to participate in the sharing of their knowledge while learning from others.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
195
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Future research
A subsequent and larger study (in progress) commenced with observations in online
communities, followed by interviews with security professionals to more closely examine
how online communities are used for work-related learning and professional development.
Security professionals often work within environments with practices influenced by global
events. The need to share and collaborate for work-related learning and continuing
professional development is not expected to lessen. Observations, discussion, and
interpretation may lead to a better understanding of their online communities and uses of
networks and resources in the security management and investigation fields. There is much to
be understood in this area of research, particularly beyond higher education settings and
related to the workplace.
Acknowledgement
The assistance of Professor David Hawkridge, visiting Professor at the Institute of Learning
Innovation, is appreciated for his editorial review and valued guidance.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
196
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
References
Association of Internet Researchers. (2012). Ethics guide. Retrieved January 7, 2013, from
http://aoir.org/documents/ethics-guide/
Attwell, G. (2006, June 1). Personal learning environments [Weblog]. Retrieved from
http://web.archive.org/web/20090114031041/http://www.knownet.com/writing/weblo
gs/Graham_Attwell/entries/6521819364
Attwell, G. (2007). Personal learning environments: The future of eLearning?
learningpapers.
Retrieved from http://www.elearningeuropa.info/
Brookfield, S.D. (1984). Self-directed adult learning: A critical paradigm.
Adult Education
Quarterly, 35(2), 59-71.
Brookfield, S.D. (1986).
Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Buchem, I., Attwell, G., & Torres, R. (2011).
Understanding personal learning environments:
Literature review and synthesis through the activity theory lens. Paper presented at the
PLE Conference 2011, Southampton, United Kingdom. Retrieved from
http://journal.webscience.org/658/
Candy, P.C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and
practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D.J. (2008). Central issues in new literacies and
new literacies research. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear & D. J. Leu (Eds.),
Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 1-21). New York, NY: Routledge.
Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T., & Darby, J. (2006). Student experiences of technologies:
Final report, JISC. 1-104. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/
Journal of Literacy and Technology
197
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Couros, A. (2010). Developing personal learning networks for open and social learning. In G.
Veletsianos (Ed.), Emerging technologies in distance education. In T. Anderson
(Series Ed.) Issues in Distance Education (pp. 109-128). Edmonton, Canada: AU
Press. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/.
Daly, J. (2013, June 14). Mobile, cloud and social media are highly susceptible to hackers,
edtechmagazine.com. Retrieved from
http://www.edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2013/06/why-higher-education-target-
hackers-phishers-and-spammers
Downes, S. (2006). Learning networks and connective knowledge. Retrieved October 22,
2011, from http://www.downes.ca/post/36031
Fiedler, S., & Väljataga, T. (2010).
Personal learning environments: Concept or technology?
Paper presented at the PLE Conference 2010, Barcelona, Spain. Retrieved from
http://pleconference.citilab.eu/
Gee, J.P. (2004).
Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Gilster, P. (1997).
Digital literacy. New York, NY: Wiley Computers.
Hager, P., & Halliday, J. (2006).
Recovering informal learning: Wisdom, judgement and
comunity. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Hooley, T., Marriott, J., & Wellens, J. (2012).
What is online research? London, United
Kingdom: Bloomsbury.
Ivanova, M., & Chatti, M.A. (2011).
Competences mapping for personal learning
environment management. Paper presented at the The PLE Conference 2011,
Southampton, United Kingdom. Retrieved from http://journal.webscience.org/569/
Journal of Literacy and Technology
198
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Jones, R.H., & Hafner, C.A. (2012).
Understanding digital literacies: A practical
introduction. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A.J., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting
the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century.
Retrieved http://www.macfound.org/press/publications/white-paper-confronting-the-
challenges-of-participatory-culture-media-education-for-the-21st-century-by-henry-
jenkins/
Knapp, K.M., & O'Driscoll, T. (2010).
Learning in 3D. San Franscisco, CA, USA: Pfeiffer.
Knowles, M.S., Holton III, E.F., & Swanson, R.A. (2011).
The adult learner: The definitive
classic in adult education and human resource development (7th ed.). Oxford, United
Kingdom: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991).
Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Livingstone, S., Van Couvering, E., & Thumin, N. (2008). Converging traditions of research
on media and information literacies: Disciplinary, critical, and methodological issues.
In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear & D. J. Leu (Eds.),
Handbook of research on
new literacies (pp. 103-132). New York, NY: Routledge.
Salinas, J., Mar��n, V., & Escandell, C. (2011).
A case of an institutional PLE: Integrating
VLEs and e-portfolios for students. Paper presented at the The PLE Conference 2011,
Southampton, United Kingdom. Retrieved from http://journal.webscience.org/585/
Sandelowski, M. (2000).
Whatever Happened to Qualitative Description? Research in
nursing and health, 23(4), 334-340.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
199
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Sclater, N. (2008). Web 2.0, personal learning environments, and the future of learning
management systems.
Research Bulletin. Retrieved from
http://pages.uoregon.edu/not/LMS/future of LMSs.pdf
Sclater, N. (2010). eLearning in the Cloud.
International Journal of Virtual and Personal
Learning Environments, 1(1), 10-19. doi: 10.4018/jvple.2010091702
Selwyn, N., Gorard, S., & Furlong, J. (2006).
Adult learning in the digital age: Information
technology and the learning society. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Thorne, S. (2008).
Interpretive description. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
van Harmelen, M. (2008). Design trajectories: Four experiments in PLE implementation.
Interactive Learning Environments. Rerieved from http://elgg.jiscemerge.org.uk
Wenger, E. (1998).
Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved from
http://wenger-trayner.com/Intro-to-CoPs/
Wheeler, S. (2010, July 11). Anatomy of a PLE [Web log message]. Retrieved from
http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.ca/2010/07/anatomy-of-ple.html
Wilson, S., Liber, O., Johnson, M., Beauvoir, P., Sharples, P., & Milligan, C. (2006). Personal
learning environments: Challenging the dominant design of educational systems.
Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1820/727
Journal of Literacy and Technology
200
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Connected Older Adults: Conceptualising their Digital Participation
Linda De George-Walker
Central Queensland University
School of Human, Health and Social Sciences, Bundaberg, Australia
Email: l.degeorge-walker@cqu.edu.au
Mark A. Tyler
Griffith University
School of Education and Professional Studies, Brisbane, Australia
Adult and Vocational Education
Email: m.tyler@griffith.edu.au
Journal of Literacy and Technology
201
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Abstract
Older adults�� experience of the digital divide is apparent and under explored. This
paper presents a model for conceptualising older adults�� digital participation by positioning
self-efficacy theory, digital competence and personal learning environments together. In
proposing the model we seek to illuminate a pathway toward digital participation for older
adults that is afforded by developing digital self-efficacy. Following the overview of our
model, we exemplify our steps towards a research agenda that seeks to examine this model by
outlining the current study we are undertaking.
Introduction
As adults move toward their latter years, they may experience acute complications in
the process of ageing well: existing with a reduced income, health issues, and social
dislocation due to no longer holding economic and socially valued roles. There has been
some evidence to suggest that digital technologies have the potential to improve opportunities
for older adults to socialise, access services and learning, and in turn improve their quality of
life and enhance social capital; moreover some of the fastest growth in uptake of technology
is occurring in older adult cohorts (Cotton, Ford, Ford, & Hale, 2012; Warburton, Cowan, &
Bathgate, 2013). Yet, these benefits may be accruing for relatively few older adults as the
digital divide fails to narrow to any significant degree with older adults continuing to
experience lower levels of digital technology use compared to younger people, and with
apparent group differences in technology use within older adulthood (Warburton et al., 2013;
White & Selwyn, 2012). If, however, we wish to capitalise on the potential for older adults in
an ageing population to ��contribute to the re-forming of society�� (Martin, 2009, p. 3) and for
digital technologies to improve the health and wellbeing of individuals and communities, it is
imperative that we seek to more fully understand what influences older adults�� digital
Journal of Literacy and Technology
202
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
participation, including issues associated with the heterogeneity of older adulthood and
technology access, but also choice and motivation.
With this in mind, our challenge in this paper is to map a model that signposts a path
towards examination of ageing adults as they navigate the digital era (Figure 1). Our
conceptualisation has its basis in Bandura��s (1997) self-efficacy theory, a motivational
construct in the social cognitive tradition. Over the past decade, self-efficacy has appeared as
a variable of interest alongside others for explaining older adults�� digital technology use, but
to the best of the authors�� knowledge no self-efficacy framework integrating Personal
Learning Environments (PLEs) and digital competence has been adopted to explain older
adults�� digital participation. In the paper, we first present an overview of self-efficacy theory
and its association with older adults�� digital participation. We then chart a path towards
exploring how digital competences and PLEs might afford digital self-efficacy and digital
participation and promote social connectedness, identity enhancement and the well-being of
older adults.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
203
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Figure 1. Conceptualising older adults�� digital participation.
Self-Efficacy Theory and Older Adults Digital Participation
Self-efficacy can be defined as ��beliefs in one��s capabilities to organize and execute
the courses of action required to produce given attainments�� (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). Self-
efficacy is a belief about capability rather than actual skills, and while both are required for
effective functioning, Bandura asserts that self-beliefs are the critical factor for personal
agency, the exercise of self-control, and achievement (Bandura, 1997). Certainly, confidence
that one can achieve beyond their capability is not likely to make it so, but if individuals do
Journal of Literacy and Technology
204
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
not believe they have personal capability, they will not attempt to do so irrespective of
whether they have the skills. This may well be the case with some older adults as they
confront the digital world with studies showing that those older adults with higher technology
self-efficacy are more likely to be internet users, engage with Facebook, and adopt computer
technology compared to those who feel less confident (e.g. Bell et al., 2013; Czaja et al.,
2006; Eastin & LaRose, 2000). The implication is that seeking to develop older adults��
technology-related confidence may prove valuable for cultivating older adults�� digital
participation.
Self-efficacy theory also specifies four antecedents or sources that influence self-
efficacy judgments: enactive mastery experiences (previous accomplishments); vicarious
experiences (observed or modelled experiences); verbal persuasion (verbal or social feedback
associated with experience); and physiological and emotional states associated with
experience. The self-efficacy judgments arising from these four sources affect goals,
persistence, and motivation, which in turn affect behaviour and performance. Self-efficacy is
cyclical, incorporating a feedback loop whereby performance and its consequences become
new sources of efficacy information. That is, self-efficacy is both a product and a constructor
of experiences. According to self-efficacy theory then, older adults�� digital participation may
be enhanced by seeking to improve their self-efficacy through the mechanisms associated
with the sources of efficacy information. Practically this might be achieved by
conceptualising digital technology training and support according to the sources of efficacy
information, and although there are studies that have explored the impacts of training and
support on older adult��s digital participation (e.g. Russell, 2011) the authors know of no
studies to date that have used the sources of efficacy information to guide the design,
implementation or evaluation of technology-related learning and support experiences for
Journal of Literacy and Technology
205
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
older adults. Additional to the sources of efficacy, comparison of one��s personal competence
in relation to the task and the nature of the setting also contribute to self-efficacy judgments.
Personal competence can be considered as current functioning, which along with analysis of
the current context, contributes to self-efficacy judgments that are a prediction of future
capability. In the next section we argue that in our integrated self-efficacy model of older
adults�� digital participation the concept of personal competence is appropriately
conceptualised as digital competences, and that PLEs offer a comprehensive approach to the
analysis of contextual aspects that might influence older adults�� digital self-efficacy
judgments.
Integrating Digital Competences, PLEs and Self-Efficacy Theory
Older adults are reported as having the lowest levels of digital competence of all
consumers, this being cited as a key factor for older adults�� low digital participation
(Warburton et al., 2013). What is digital competence? A simple search on the Internet and
within the academic literature reveals an array of definitions and variations in the use of the
term digital competences such as: technological literacy, e-literacy, internet literacy, and
digital literacy; and it is often associated with other concepts such as information literacy,
media literacy, visual literacy and communication literacy, all of which offer a particular
nuanced perspective. Current major projects and models reported in the literature
nevertheless tend to be framed in terms of either digital competences or digital literacies.
Reviews of current definitions of these terms, two of which are offered below, indicate the
concepts of digital competences and digital literacies may be similar in their intention and
application:
Journal of Literacy and Technology
206
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
[Digital competence]
��(...) consists in being able to explore and face new technological
situations in a flexible way, to analyze, select and critically evaluate data and information,
to exploit technological potentials in order to represent and solve problems and build
shared and collaborative knowledge, while fostering awareness of one��s own personal
responsibilities and the respect of reciprocal rights/obligations.��
Calvani, Cartelli, Fini, & Ranieri, 2008, p. 186
[Digital literacy is]
��(...) the awareness, attitude and ability of individuals to appropriately
use digital tools and facilities to identify, access, manage, integrate, evaluate, analyse and
synthesize digital resources, construct new knowledge, create media expressions, and
communicate with others, in the context of specific life situations, in order to enable
constructive social action; and to reflect upon this process.��
Martin, 2005, p. 135, DigEulit project
A review of various frameworks and models of digital competences and digital
literacy also initially suggest they are interchangeable terms. For example, some models of
digital literacy emphasise the notion of multiple digital literacies and refer to a range of
technical, cognitive, motor, and socioemotional skill sets required for navigating the digital
world. The model of Eshet-Alkalai (2012), for example, refers to six digital literacies: photo-
visual (understanding and communicating graphically), reproduction (manipulating digital
material to create new and meaningful materials), branching literacy (constructing knowledge
from non-linear navigation of hypermedia environments), information literacy (critical
consumption of digital information), social-emotional literacy (communicating effectively in
online contexts), and real-time thinking (processing and evaluating large volumes of digital
information simultaneously). Similarly, several models of digital competence also reflect the
Journal of Literacy and Technology
207
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
multi-faceted skills needed to engage with the digital world. For example, the European
Digital Competence (DIGCOMP) project has identified knowledge, skills and attitude (KAS)
competences as necessary to engage with the digital world: information management
(identify, locate, access, retrieve, store and organise information), collaboration (link with
others, participate in online networks and communities, interact constructively),
communication and sharing (communicate through online tools, taking into account privacy,
safety and netiquette), creation of content and knowledge (integrate and re-elaborate previous
knowledge and content, construct new knowledge), ethics and responsibility (behave in an
ethical and responsible way, aware of legal frames), evaluating and problem solving (identify
digital needs, solve problems through digital means, assess the information retrieved, and
technical operations (use technology and media, perform tasks and through digital tools)
(Ferrari, 2012). This model notes that these KAS competences may develop according to
levels depending on age, depth of application, or cognitive complexity.
Martin (2009), however, offers a different take on conceptualising digital literacy,
modelling it as three levels of engagement with the digital. The first level, digital
competence, is according to Martin a precursor of digital literacy, and is the skill and
differentiation of skill levels necessary for digital engagement. Similar to the notion of
multiple digital competences presented above, Martin suggests that digital competence
presents as levels of expertise to be mastered, from the basic to the complex, and includes
such activities as finding and retrieving information on the web, using task specific software,
generating content for web presentation and the like. At level two, digital usage emphasises
the connect between a user (individual, group, or community) and the life situation to which
the digital competence is being deployed. Successful doing can result when the user��s digital
expertise shapes a unique response to a task or problem (Martin, 2009). In Martin��s model,
Journal of Literacy and Technology
208
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
digital transformation is the third and final level of digital literacy. This stage is reached when
innovation and creativity are used to stimulate change in personal and social circumstances
and contexts. Digital usages offer the catalyst and conduit for these changes. When applied to
older adults this may mean enabling and maintaining social networks by remaining connected
through email, chat room and various instant-messaging opportunities; or challenging the
societal perceptions about older adult consumers as they launch themselves into the
convenience of online purchasing, participate in online social commentary through social
networking sites, or engage in digitally mediated forms of learning. We argue that these
transformational consequences of digital usages that shape identities and facilitate social
inclusion are the critical aspects that may promote the observed improvements in older
adults�� health and wellbeing as a result of digital participation.
What is clear from this review of various definitions, models and frameworks is that
digital literacy is more than being technologically savvy; the digitally literate have necessary
knowledge, skills and attitudes in information management and communication, as well as
being good technical operators. Further, these knowledges, skills and attitudes, although
described as digital literacy in some models, may be more appropriately considered as digital
competences, themselves only one component of what it means to be digitally literate. We
argue that digital competence as a set of knowledge, skills and attitudes, and a sub-
component of digital literacy, aligns best with the concept of personal competence in self-
efficacy theory and is therefore an antecedent of digital self-efficacy. An increase in digital
competence to varying degrees and with consideration of individual capability, circumstance
and purpose will feed the self-efficacious position that feeds back into widening and
deepening digital participation, a process that offers a cycle of contribution and development
particularly into and through Martin��s (2009) usage and transformation levels of digital
Journal of Literacy and Technology
209
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
literacy. As degrees of self-efficacy increase, an increased motivation is experienced that
prompts wider and deeper digital participation; and this in turn leads to the creative,
innovative, and transformative activities that may promote older adults health and wellbeing.
As indicated in the definitions of digital literacy and competence provided above, and
as detailed in Martin��s model, digital participation is contextualised by the nature of the task
to be achieved and the characteristics of the environment. Contextual influences are also
crucial for self-efficacy judgments. It is here that we argue PLEs offer an opportunity to more
fully conceptualise these individual and social aspects of context as they apply to digital self-
efficacy and digital participation for older adults. PLEs are fluid and relational learning
contexts in which individuals are both autonomous and interconnected; they appropriate
available external (digital and non-digital) and internal tools, methods and resources within
communities to problem solve, learn and develop (Buchem, Attwell, & Torres, 2011).
While we could not locate studies looking specifically at PLEs and older adults��
digital competence, digital participation, or digital self-efficacy, the literature demonstrates
the importance of the personal and social context for older adults�� digital participation. For
example, there is evidence that approaches that are agentic and capitalise on the existing
interests and needs of older adults can motivate digital technology use; and that staying
connected with family and friends, the accessibility of aged based interest groups or
intentional communities, the availability of support for technology assistance, less formal
instructional settings, can influence older adults technology use (Bell et al., 2013; Rees Jones,
Gilleard, Higgs, & Day, 2011; Kearns, Tyrrell, & Bend, 2002; Selwyn, Gorard, Furlong, &
Madden, 2003).
Ivanova and Chatti (2011) state that ��a PLE can be viewed as a supporting tool for the
enhancement of the learner��s performance in his or her activities management as well as for
Journal of Literacy and Technology
210
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
the acquisition of knowledge, skills and expertise (p. 2). Similarly, we model PLEs as
personal and social affordances (including, but limited to the notion of ��tools��) that along
with the sources of efficacy and digital competences can facilitate digital participation
through building self-efficacy (Figure 1). Future research will be needed to clarify the key
features of older adults PLEs related to their digital participation, and the specific
relationships among older adults�� PLEs and the other variables in our model. In the next
section of the paper we exemplify how we intend to clarify these proposed relationships by
presenting an overview of a research study that we are currently undertaking as part of a
larger research agenda that seeks to examine our proposed model of older adults�� digital
participation.
Our Current Research
Currently we are studying older digital users and non-users (the digital participation
dimension of our model – see Figure 1) and the relationship of these positions with their
digital self-efficacy (the self-efficacy dimension of our model). We are also examining how
digital self-efficacy may develop in older adults by focusing on aspects associated with two
other dimensions in our model – these are the personal learning environments dimension and
the sources of efficacy dimension. More specifically for personal learning environments, we
are investigating technology access, personal utility and social influence. For the sources that
are proposed to influence self-efficacy judgments, we are investigating mastery experiences,
in particular previous success with digital technologies. Digital anxiety is an example of the
physiological and affective source that we are focusing on.
More broadly in our research we are interested in examining the various specific paths
of influence to digital participation and wellbeing suggested in our model. Importantly, we
Journal of Literacy and Technology
211
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
wish to create opportunities for older adults to voice their digital experiences, this we
envisage will alert to the range of influences on digital participation that are not necessarily
reflected in our model presently. This will necessitate that our methodologies are flexible as
demonstrated in our current study where we are using a parallel or embedded mixed methods
approach (Cresswell & Plano Clark, 2011) in which both quantitative and qualitative data
will be gathered simultaneously to allow us to path analyse and predict the proposed
relationships between digital participation, self-efficacy, sources of efficacy and personal
learning environments, but also to gain a deeper and more nuanced perspective about the
barriers and affordances for digital participation among older people.
We are necessarily interested in the continuum of older digital technology users –
from the non-user to the high-level-user – and we argue this as requirement to gaining a full
appreciation of the factors that facilitate and hinder digital technology use of older people.
Hence, and as exemplified in our current study, we have considered carefully the data
collection methods that are inclusive of older people at various points on this continuum. An
online survey, for example, would almost certainly exclude the older non-user from our
study; hence we have opted for a face to face structured survey to gather both the quantitative
(Likert-type) data and qualitative (open verbal responses) data.
Conclusion
Achieving positive experiences of the digital by older adults appears as a reasonable
goal that accords well with the mentioned notions of social contribution and wellbeing.
Digital engagement by older adults needs to be purposive and agentic, and we argue that a
means of achieving this is by the building of efficacious responses to particular experiences
and contexts that afford learning. Further researching what these actually are, that is, which
Journal of Literacy and Technology
212
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
are most influential and which might best be leveraged to increase older adults�� technology
self-efficacy, appear as our next step toward deepening an understanding of older adults��
digital terrain.
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bell, C., Fausset, C., Farmer, S., Nguyen, J., Harley, L., & Fain, W.B. (2013, 1-3 May).
Examining social media use among older adults. Paper presented at the ACM
Conference on Hypertext and Social Media, Paris, France. Retrieved from
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2481509
Buchem, I., Attwell, G., & Torres, R. (2011). Understanding Personal Learning
Environments: Literature review and synthesis through the Activity Theory lens, 1-33.
In Proceedings of PLE Conference, 10-12 July 2011, Southampton, UK. Retrieved
from http://journal.webscience.org/658/
Calvani, A., Cartelli, A., Fini, A., & Ranieri, M. (2008). Models and instruments for assessing
digital competence at school. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 4(3),
183-193.
Cotten, S. R., Ford, G., Ford, S., & Hale, T. M. (2012). Internet use and depression among
older adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 496-499.
Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2011).
Designing and conducting mixed methods research
(2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
213
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Czaja, S.J., Charness, N., Fisk, A.D., Hertzog, C., Nair, S.N., Rogers, W.A., & Sharit, J.
(2006). Factors predicting the use of technology: Findings from the Centre for
Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE).
Psychological Aging, 21(3), 333-352.
Eastin, M., & LaRose, R. Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide.
Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6(1). doi:10.1111/j.1083-
6101.2000.tb00110.x.
Eshet, Y. (2012). Thinking in the digital era: A revised model for digital literacy. Issues in
Informing Science and Information Technology, 9, 267-276.
Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. (European
Commission Joint Research Centre Technical Report). Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union. Retrieved from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC68116.pdf
Gapski, H. (2007). Some reflections on digital literacy. In V. Kamtsiou, L. Stergioulas, & F.
Van Assche (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Digital Literacy,
Greece, September 17, 2007 (p.p. 49-55). The Netherlands, CEUR-WS. Retrieved
from http://ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-
310/paper05.pdf
Ivanova. M., & Chatti, M.A. (2011). Competences mapping for Personal Learning
Environment management. 1-13. In Proceedings of PLE Conference, 10-12 July 2011,
Southampton, UK. Retrieved from http://journal.webscience.org/569/
Kearns, I., Tyrrell, J., & Bend, J. (2002). Access, training and content: How to engage older
people with ICTs. A report for Help the Aged. London: IPPR Trading.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
214
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Martin, A. (2005). DigEuLit–A European framework for digital literacy: A progress report.
Journal of eLiteracy, 2(2), 130-136.
Martin, A. (2009). Digital literacy for the Third Age: Sustaining identity in an uncertain
world. eLearning Papers, 12, 1-15. Retrieved from
http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/media18500.pdf.
Rees Jones, I., Gilleard, C., Higgs, P., & Day, C. (2011). Connectivity, place and elective
belonging: Community and later life. Retrieved from http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/Funding-
Opportunities/Research-funding/Connected-Communities/Scoping-studies-and-
reviews/Pages/Scoping-studies-and-reviews.aspx
Russell, H. (2011). Later life ICT learners ageing well. International Journal of Ageing and
Later Life, 6(2), 103-127.
Selwyn, N., Gorard, S., Furlong, J., & Madden, L. (2003). Older adults�� use of information
and communications technology in everyday life. Ageing and Society, 23, 561-582.
Warburton, J., Cowan, S., & Bathgate, T. (2013). Building social capital among rural, older
Australians through information and communication technologies: A review article.
Australasian Journal on Ageing, 32(1), 8-14.
White, P., & Selwyn, N. (2012). Learning online? Educational internet use and participation
in adult learning, 2002 to 2010. Educational Review, 64(4). 451-469.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
215
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Innovation, Knowledge and Sustainability with PLEs: an Empirical
Analysis from SAPO Campus Schools Pilots
Carlos Santos
Assistant lecturer and Ph.D. student
Communication and Arts Department
University of Aveiro, Portugal
e-mail: carlossantos@ua.pt
Lu��s Pedro
Assistant Professor
Communication and Arts Department
University of Aveiro, Portugal
e-mail: lpedro@ua.pt
F��tima Pais
Computer Science and ICT teacher in secondary education
PHD candidate in the Multimedia in Education Doctoral Program
University of Aveiro, Portugal
e-mail: fpais@ua.pt
Journal of Literacy and Technology
216
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Abstract
SAPO Campus Schools (SCS), a project developed by the University of Aveiro
and SAPO within the Labs SAPO R&D facility, is a Web 2.0 services platform
designed for schools (K1 through K12). Based on an empirical study of use cases of the
platform, this paper analyses preliminary data gathered from a group of pilot schools
that have institutionally adopted SCS. Building on the concept of BA (Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995), which relates to the engagement of people interacting in a given space
in order to create knowledge, and in the assumption that SCS can become a school��s
BA and promote disruptive innovation, our main goal is to understand if and how these
dimensions intersect in the use cases and whether the changes already noticed in
schools will be sustainable on the long run.
Introduction
Sapo Campus Schools (SCS), a project developed by the University of Aveiro, SAPO and
TMN within the Labs SAPO R&D facility, is a Web 2.0 platform specifically designed for
schools (K1 through K12) that results from the reinvention of another, similar, platform
designed for Higher Education (Santos & Pedro, 2009). In September 2012, a group of pilot
schools was chosen to sign a protocol making a commitment to promote the formal and
institutional adoption and use of SCS. The signing of this protocol assured the participation
of the different schools in this research project, making it easier to get feedback from users in
a real setting. This feedback also allowed the developer team to uncover flaws in the system
and to get real and almost live input on how to improve the services provided. On the other
hand, these schools were also faced with the challenge of opening themselves, by promoting
and encouraging openness, collaboration, content production and sharing. Because SCS
Journal of Literacy and Technology
217
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
makes it possible to create and manage personal learning spaces from an individual
perspective (teacher/student/other users), it was also important to discuss the concept of
Personal Learning Environments (PLE) within each institution.
This particular research project attempts to verify if this process can become a catalyst for
disruptive innovation (Christensen et al., 2008) and the creation of spaces where new
knowledge can emerge in schools – BA (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). In the following
sections we will revisit these concepts, making way for the analysis of specific use cases that
are currently under way in SCS. After that, we will discuss the methodological strategies
behind this empirical analysis, the cases themselves and will put forward some final remarks.
Background
Schools can become advocates for knowledge management through the creation of
institutional learning spaces, where everyone can share, create and display knowledge.
Drucker (2002), for instance, refers to the creation of knowledge as an innovation source that
has undergone change. Pais et al. (2012) summarize the different types of innovation
presented by Christensen et al. (2008) by stating that
��(��) sustainable innovation is about making something better and disruptive
innovation is about making something new��.
Pais et al., 2012, p. 5
Hargreaves (cit. in Ferrari et al., 2009) points out that the idea behind disruptive
innovation is the opposite of that of sustainable innovation. Figueiredo (2009) doesn��t share
this vision as he states that despite the high level of failure associated with sustainable
innovation in education, this path can be explored. However,
Journal of Literacy and Technology
218
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
��[t]he promising path to innovation in education systems is through disruptive
innovation that quietly grows in the margins of the system, unobtrusively until starts
changing it, irreversibly��
Figueiredo, 2009, p. 29
We argue that SCS could be a vehicle for this innovation combined with
institutionalization. Miles (1998) presents institutionalization as a change to be taken as
normal, as something that is part of organizational life; and that has unquestionable resources
of time, personnel and money available. The apparent paradox in the SCS conception -
institutional versus personal dichotomy - may actually be another catalyst for change.
Considering knowledge creation and the role it plays in promoting innovation, SCS can
actually support this space: BA. As stated by Pais et al. (2012, p. 15):
��BA is characterized by the involvement of people interacting in a given space, what
sets it apart from ordinary human interaction, the main difference relying on the goal
of these meetings: BA aims at creating knowledge.��
SCS can, therefore, be an optimal space for schools that create and share knowledge, the
kind of schools that Cheng & Chen (2008, p. 383) consider to be�� the cradles of innovative
knowledge, [that] have a rich collection of intangible assets��.
SCS anatomy
SCS��s design was based on a set of principles that had a direct impact on usage and user
interaction. Openness, one of those fundamental features, involves two different kinds of
issues. Because we are dealing with minors (students) that interact within a digital
environment, the platform must be safe and in compliance with legal and regulatory
requirements. Hence, all content published by users of a given school can only be accessed
Journal of Literacy and Technology
219
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
by other members of the same school, which includes not only other students, but also
teachers, parents, guardians and other stakeholders, all previously validated by the platform��s
institutional administrators. Inside SCS, all published content is visible to all members of the
community, thereby achieving the digital metaphor of the school space. Another consequence
of this openness is having a horizontal rather than a hierarchical outlook and structure. Within
SCS all users have the same permissions, even though they can play different roles while
performing different activities. This choice means that the community must have self-
regulation mechanisms, with schools playing a key role in promoting digital citizenship and
education. Another fundamental principle underlying the design of SCS is sharing, with a
wide range of services being made available to users, making it possible for them to store,
organize and share resources in different formats. The creation of blogs is not controlled or
subject to institutional permission: any logged-in user can create all the blogs he wants and
invite others to manage them. The same applies for photos, videos and the recently integrated
file sharing service. Users can also create groups (open or closed; public or private) and make
them available to the community.
The principle of personalisation is attained by the creation of a Personal Learning
Environment (PLE). This personal and non-transferable dimension suggested by
Westenbrugge (Kompen, et al., 2009, p. 34), makes it possible for users to construct their
own PLE. Another key feature of SCE is institutionalization, in the way schools must make a
commitment to promote the formal and institutional adoption and use of SCS. The
combination of these two principles (institutionalization and personalization) was carefully
thought out in order to ��ensure to the educational agents the possibility of building and
customizing their own PLE based on commonly-used Web 2.0 services, while simultaneously
Journal of Literacy and Technology
220
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
not restricting the range of potential learning activities that can be carried out in a diverse
environment as the educational context�� (Pedro et al., 2012, p. 3).
Methodology
The processes of adopting technology can be very complex and challenging,
especially when they involve significant procedural changes. Even though the introduction of
SCS on itself does not imply change, the way it is used by different agents in different school
settings can be highly disruptive. Therefore, despite all the institutional support and
commitment, and as seen from previous experiences and projects, full implementation and
adoption can be very difficult.
The use cases of SCS being presented in this paper result from a pilot study group that
benefitted from certified training workshops supervised by the University of Aveiro. These
workshops were strategically thought out not only to promote the institutional adoption and
appropriation of SCS, but also to facilitate and promote the creation of PLEs at an early stage
of their development. These workshops took place between November 2012 and April 2013
and consisted of a total 30 hours of work (15 in attendance and 15 at a distance). After
introducing some basic concepts and discussing the philosophy behind Web 2.0 and how it
relates to teaching and learning dynamics, the participants had the opportunity to explore SCS
and were challenged to develop and execute an educational project that involved the
platform. These workshops became very important in promoting and supporting the
appropriation of SCS, not only from a more technical perspective, but also and foremost
because they allowed people to share and discuss their on-going progress, questions and
problems in a constructive way. Based on this sharing and on the opinion of the users,
participants often realigned their initial projects, gradually feeling more confortable using
SCS and understanding its underlying principles.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
221
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
From the group of pilot schools, three were chosen for this analysis. Even though these
schools (hereafter referred to as school A, school B and school C) are geographically close
(within a 50 km radius), they are very different from each other. School A is located in a
fishing village and has 378 students (ages 3 to 15) and around 40 teachers. School B is
located in a rural setting. It is attended by 2606 students (ages 3 to 18) and has 241 teachers.
It is a cluster school made up of 10 different establishments, 8 of which are geographically
scattered. School C is located in an urban and industrialized area and is a junior/high school
attended by students from the 7th to the 12th grade. It is a former industrial school known for
its use of technology with 971 students and 134 teachers.
As described previously, all schools had to sign a protocol and were institutionally and
formally bound to the project, also having access to specific training and support.
Nevertheless, because of the different settings and features, the adoption and use of SCS was
very diverse. The perceptions and feedback gathered both online and throughout the onsite
training sessions made it clear that, even though schools officials have initially been very
welcoming and receptive of the project, they adopted different strategies that influenced and
constrained the way SCS was used by teachers and/or students. These perceptions are
supported by the statistical data gathered from the platform.
Figure 1. Percentage of registered users
Journal of Literacy and Technology
222
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
In order to analyse Figure 1 you have to keep in mind the specific features of each school.
Students attending school A are between 3 and 15 years old. The percentage of registered
users refers to the total number of students, including those who are too young to use the
platform by themselves. School B is a very particular case. As mentioned before, this is a
cluster school made up of 10 different establishments, being that only 5 of those schools have
registered users. While school B1 is attended by 13 to 18 year students, students in B2 are
between 10 and 12. B3 and B4 are nursery/preschools (ages 3 to 5) and B5 is a primary
school (ages 6 to 9). With overall older students (ages 13 to 18), in school C all students are
autonomous and could register themselves in the SCS platform. Drawing from this analysis,
schools A, B5 and C are arguably those that stand out.
Even though the number of users can be considered an objective source of data, it is
important to complement this analysis with the activity reports of each school. In order to get
a more complete and comprehensive analysis, a user activity rate was defined. This rate was
based on the ratio between the number of registered users and the activity in each school
(number of comments, states, photos, videos, links and posts). The results can be seen in the
chart below:
Journal of Literacy and Technology
223
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Figure 2. Activity Rate
In the following analysis, School B4 will be left out because there was no activity other
than the registration. Chart 2 confirms the idea that schools A, B5 and C are those in which
there are more registered users and that are globally more active. However, as we can see
from the results in school B5, there is no direct correlation between the number of registered
users and each school��s activity. Even though it has the lowest number of registered users of
the 3, school B5 is the one with the highest activity rate.
After defining and validating the choice of schools to be analysed, it was important to
select specific use cases within these schools. These cases were selected based on different
criteria that included creativity in the use of the platform, the impact on student engagement
and content creation. Because these projects were publically presented and discussed as part
of the training workshops, in addition to the data from the platform itself, this analysis also
considers interviews with school administrators and the input of the teachers involved.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
224
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
In school A, the project selected – ��AEC (Curriculum Enrichment Activities) for all�� –
clearly illustrates the potential and the impact that SCS can have in younger audiences.
Working with 6 to 9 year old students, the teachers involved in the project created a blog and
different groups in which all students could post information, photos or videos regarding not
only classroom or school activities, but also other content they found relevant. The different
spaces were also used for collaborative projects and to promote contests that involved the
school community. Besides being very engaging and involving a great number of students,
this project also prompted other teachers to develop their own ventures within SCS. The fact
that it played a significant role supporting other initiatives is widely recognized and was
pointed out by the school��s administrator in an interview.
The ��GeoSapo�� project from school B was also selected because of its impact. A more
personal endeavour, it involved a group of motivated teachers that created an engaging
project that appealed to other teachers and even other schools. At a first stage, the project
aimed at publicizing a wide range of activities that promoted the local geopark, but it quickly
evolved into something more dynamic, taking full advantage of Web 2.0 features. This
project was at the core of a process that can lead to disruptive innovation.
In school C we have selected 2 cases to analyse: ��Weekend Discussions�� and ��The 3R
Club��. The first example was selected because of its diversity and levels of participation.
Unlike the previous cases, it has a very different background and goals, with SCS being used
to support discussions on topics that aren��t usually discussed in the classroom. After a process
of negotiation, the teacher and the students agreed that every Friday, a student would have to
suggest a topic to be discussed synchronically the following Sunday, from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m.
As for the second project – ��the 3R club�� – it didn��t have a predefined audience, supporting
an already existing recycling group that was open to all students. Because it was the first time
Journal of Literacy and Technology
225
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
the teacher responsible for the project worked with social networking services, there were
some initial reservations. But, despite the initial scepticism, SCS became a cohesive agent,
with a high level of engagement, with more and more challenges being posted every week.
Nevertheless, it is also important to mention that not all projects developed within the
platform succeeded in promoting participation and engagement. In some cases, like in school
C, at least one project had virtually no interaction. One thing that emerges consistently in all
schools involved is the personal dimension that embodies the concept of PLE and can be
easily found in the examples described. Using SCS, teachers and/or students create and
regularly update blogs about their own personal interests and share photos, videos and links,
also commenting and interacting in different ways.
Throughout the following sections of this paper we will examine these cases more
comprehensively, systematically revisiting their unique and differentiating features, as well as
common and constant elements that make up the processes and may be the drivers for
disruptive innovation. Setting out to describe some examples of how a Web 2.0 platform is
being used in different schools and relating that with innovation and knowledge creation
processes, this study does not intend to thoroughly analyse each particular case, but rather
draw a broader picture, exploring possibilities that have already been noticed.
Use Cases
Project ��AEC for all�� (School A)
Recently, trying to meet families�� needs by adjusting schools schedules, the
Portuguese government created the Curriculum Enrichment Activities (AEC), a funded
program that aims at broadening the primary school curriculum and ensure a full day
education. Arguing that schools should offer more than just curricular activities and that they
should promote physical education, sports, arts, technology, scientific inquiry and foreign
Journal of Literacy and Technology
226
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
languages education, the Ministry of Education developed a regulatory framework to ensure
that after their regular classes, children can stay at school and engage in pedagogically
enriched activities.
At school A students can take part in Study Room, English as a Foreign Language,
Sports, Arts and Story Time. Even though they are not compulsory, most students are enrolled
in these activities. Considering only those attending English and Arts classes and whose
teachers took part in the training workshop, this particular use case involved a total of 112
students. When asked to come up with a project that combined features of Web 2.0 and SCS
and that was within the scope of the AEC, the teachers involved tried to create an articulated
and interactive space, where all participants could share authorship and publish content. To be
accessed outside the classroom, this space would be used to showcase the work being done in
the different activities. Using a blog, participants should regularly post texts, pictures and
videos displaying their work, so that other members of the community could comment on it.
This blog was created and then shown to the students. In order to showcase the features of the
platform and make it easier for students to register, a demo-user for each class was created.
The first interactions within the SCE took place using these demo-users in the classroom, as
students started to register themselves.
After this approach and due to difficulties in the registration process, the teachers
involved asked for parents�� permission to register the students in the platform. At the time of
this analysis, 58 students were registered in SCS and listed as blog authors. Of those 58, 51
took active part in the blog either by publishing post or comments.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
227
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Figure 3. Activity distributed by participant/user type/role
As can be seen in Figure 3, in the time frame analysed, 92 posts and 505 comments were
published. Because it is a blog open to the community, there are some comments that were
made by other teachers and students who are not directly involved in the AEC project.
Overall, and even though most content was published by the teachers, students were very
active in commenting. In fact, as it can be seen in figure 4, there was a steady increase in
student participation. This can indicate a growing familiarity with the platform, with students
feeling more confident to interact as they become more autonomous. In addition to this,
student activity tends to mirror teacher activity, repeating its pattern.
Figure 4. Activity - monthly distribution
Journal of Literacy and Technology
228
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
If you analyse the blog��s activity more closely, you can also observe that activity peaks in
the blog are concurrent with specific school events, such as the school��s Christmas party or
the celebration of Valentine��s day. In that way the activity timeline in the platform seems to
replicate the school calendar and activities, with user participation decreasing significantly in
school holidays.
In Figure 5 you have an example of students�� activity. Following a collaborative writing
task in the classroom, students went online and published a Valentine��s Day Poem. This post
was commented on by other students and also by teachers. Soon after this post, students from
other classes also posted their own poems on SCE.
Figure 5
. Student activity
Even though some of the activities were carried during classes, most students interactions
took place outside the classroom, after school hours or during study breaks (between 10:00
and 10:30 am and 3:00 and 3:30 p.m).
Journal of Literacy and Technology
229
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Figure 6
. Student participation: daily distribution
An empirical analysis of the number of posts and comments also suggests that this blog
evolved from being a display of the work being done by the students to become a sharing,
collaborative and socialization space, combining formal and informal learning and
interaction. In addition to publishing information related to content presented in class, such as
a song or the life and work of a given artist, it was possible to identify some of the students��
interest areas and problems, which were later addressed in other settings. When a link to a
game was made available, for example, students were asked to post their scores in English,
making it possible for one of the teachers to pinpoint a few common mistakes. At another
time, after reading some confusing comments about an Albert Einstein cartoon, another
teacher took the opportunity to carry out a research assignment about prominent scientific
personalities.
The blog was also used to answer questions about the platform and troubleshooting. Many
of these comments dealt with space personalization, with students asking how they could
change their profile photo, and with publishing content (��How do I publish a video?��, ��Can
you help me post a photo?��, ��I forgot how to publish a video.��). Even though some of these
problems were recurring at first, they became less noticeable as students became more
Journal of Literacy and Technology
230
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
independent accessing the platform. It should also be noted the role played by older and more
autonomous students in answering less-experienced users questions and helping them register
and taking part in the community.
The data gathered suggests that users were very enthusiastic in participating and
interacting with each other and with the content published. However, mostly due to the age of
the users, participation was disorganized and at times chaotic, making it impossible to
categorize the type of comments and find content patterns. Many students published content
and asked questions outside the blog and tried to address specific people rather than focus on
space. Students�� comments also suggest that they were interested in synchronous
communication with other users, often using comments and posts to chat. Another indication
of the users�� lack of experience was the fact that, when trying to comment on something, they
would report the content as inappropriate. This could signal that it would be important to
have other ways of interacting with content that didn��t imply writing comments.
GeoSAPO (School B5)
Located in rural setting and near a geological park, school B5 is a recently remodeled
school with a strong connection to the surrounding environment. Each classroom, for
example, is named after a geological element that can be found in the near geological park (as
the ��trilobite room��). In addition to these more symbolic features, and because nature and
ecology are a very important part of the curriculum, the school has also developed many
projects in this area, the most recent being the ��Earth Experiences�� program. The project
GeoSAPO aims to extend the scope of this program and ��developing multidisciplinary
activities that promote the Geopark��. Five teachers of this school decided to use SCS to
support and publicize their work. Even though it was the first time they worked with web 2.0
platforms, working closely together as a team, the teachers involved managed to overcome
Journal of Literacy and Technology
231
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
the different obstacles they faced. The first problem relied on the registration process. Due to
the age and lack of experience of their students, they had to create email addresses and
register them. This process required getting parental consent and working with the families,
making them aware of this opportunity of working together with their children and allowing
them to actively engage in their learning. In addition to the registration, teachers also had to
be creative in order to keep the younger children from forgetting their logins and passwords.
They designed a personal and non-transferable card with each user��s information and
monitored their activity very closely.
With many registered users working on it, the project became a big hit. In order to address
curricular questions, different spaces where created within SCS, with the different classes
taking part and participating keenly. That massive participation is demonstrated in the chart
below:
Figure 7. Activity distributed by participant/user type/role
This chart confirms what was said previously in the methodology section: school B5
has the highest activity rate of all the schools considered in this study, with students not only
reacting (number of comments) but also producing content (number of student posts).
Journal of Literacy and Technology
232
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Moving beyond the initial project, many students also spontaneously created blogs and
posted their own content, as can be seen in the following examples:
• Fun PEB09 – a place where all the PEB09 (the author��s classmates) can laugh
A 4th grade student created a blog where he could post jokes. This is an interesting
example because the author asked his classmates to join him, so they would not only
react to what was being written, but also post their own jokes and funny stories.
• Infinite Music
A third grade student who was passionate about music and the transverse flute, created
a blog where she would post videos, photos and texts on this topic.
The chart above also gives us important data regarding teacher participation. As you
can see, there is a significant number of comments from teachers who are not involved in the
project. As we mentioned before, school B is a cluster school made up of 10 different
establishments, being that all of them can access content being published by the different
schools. Many of the comments from other teachers, are also from different schools. This
dynamic gave way to the collaboration between schools, with school B5 positively
influencing and driving other teachers and students to develop their own projects. This was a
two-way influence and collaboration, as users from other schools would often interact with
users from school B5.
As for GeoSAPO, in order to support the project, teachers at school B5 created a
��GeoSAPO time��. Every Wednesday morning, students taking part in the project would meet
in the school library to share what they had learnt throughout the week, ask questions about
SCS and prepare competitions and challenges. Because it was difficult for some younger
Journal of Literacy and Technology
233
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
students to keep up with all the activities, older students would often monitor and help them.
These meetings went viral, with other students becoming curious and eager to take part in the
project. Another distinctive feature of this project is the fact that it involved people outside
the school. As mentioned before, parents were key players in adopting and using the
platform, as it supported their involvement in their children��s school activities. This evidence
is also supported by the following chart:
Figure 8. Student participation: daily distribution
Most activity in SCS took place after 5 p.m., i.e. outside school hours. Even though the
time alone is not enough to determine parental participation, there are other indicators that
support this assumption:
• Most students that log-in after 5 p.m. are 3 to 5 years old and do not know how to read
and write;
• Some posts are co-signed by parents, showing their support in using the platform;
Throughout the whole process it is also important to mention the interaction strategies
adopted by the teachers involved, who would readily answered all their students�� questions
and stimulated them. They also developed an informal user policy and promoted online
safety. According to them, this was SCS�� most significant benefit: the fact that it made it
possible for them to showcase their work in a safe environment within the school community.
The 3R club (School C)
Journal of Literacy and Technology
234
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
In Portugal there is a national programme that encourages the collection and recycling
of plastic bottle caps, with several companies exchanging them for orthopaedic material.
Carrying on the work of previous years, the 3R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) club from school C
is involved in this campaign and aims at raising people��s awareness for this movement.
Working closely with local authorities and CERCI (a centre for the rehabilitation and
integration of people with disabilities) the club is always reaching out to the community and
trying to find new active members.
When asked to come up with a project involving her students, Web 2.0 services and SCS one
of the teachers responsible for the club, together with a group of 9th grade students, outlined a
plan of action that included:
•
The creation of the ��3R Club Blog�� where different events could be publicized.
•
Researching and posting creative projects that used recyclable and reusable materials;
•
Advertising collection points throughout the school;
•
The creation of a group in SCS where participants could work together in order to
design two bottle caps collection containers. All caps collected should then be
recycled, with the funds raised proceeding to the local CERCI.
In the following chart we can see the number of posts and comments on the blog, according
to the type of user.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
235
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Figure 9. Activity distributed by participant/user type/role
Even though, when compared to others, this blog did not have a significant number of
contributions, there are some distinctive features that should be taken into account and are
relevant for this analysis. On the one hand, it was a new experience for all those involved,
being that the teacher responsible for the blog had never worked with Web 2.0 services
before. Nevertheless, she prompted student participation, asking them for comments, posting
challenges and even giving out rewards. In one of these challenges, the teacher posted a
picture of a container somewhere in the school, asking students to guess where it was:
��Is it a giant candy, a vase? No! It��s a hidden plastic container used to collect plastic
caps from those who drink water or yogurts at school. Have you seen it?? Where is
it?? Have you ever used it?? I don��t think so. I keep seeing caps in the regular bin.
Why don��t we use the recycling bins and put the caps on a separate container???
There will be a sweet award for the first to guess where this cap collector is!!��
Teacher, School C
Student feedback was immediate and the winner was given a chocolate bar. But the
most interesting aspect of the project was the fact that, as the different challenges were
Journal of Literacy and Technology
236
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
issued, many of the discussions extended beyond SCE, taking place in and outside the
classroom. According to the teacher in charge, many students that were not involved in the
project would question her about the challenges and the results. Because it is a non-curricular
project, most interactions took place after classes. In the following chart we can see the daily
distribution of student activities (number of posts and comments).
Figure 10. Student participation: daily distribution
In order to publicize the project and the different club activities posted in the blog, the
teacher also used the school��s mural, regularly reaching out to all members of the community
and inviting other students to take part in the project. This was considered to be an effective
strategy. Another interesting feature of the project was the fact that many other teachers also
engaged in the discussions. This interaction played an important part in keeping students
motivated and making the project known.
As mentioned previously, one of the challenges issued involved the creation of two
cap collecting containers. Open to the school community, in order to enter the competition
participants should publish rough drafts that would then go through a selection process. With
the help of teachers and students, two drafts were chosen. Because there were many
constraints associated with the actual building process, in one of the training sessions the
teacher supervising the project asked for the cooperation of arts teachers and students.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
237
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Another teacher attending the workshop offered to help and working collaboratively (both
teachers and students) they built the container below (Figure 11):
Figure 11. Container
This container went on to win a municipal award.
You speak, I speak, we speak (school B)
Involving an 11th grade class (students ages 16-17), this project was open to the
community and, according to the teacher in charge, aimed at ��promoting the use of Web 2.0
as a way of bringing participants closer and developing their critical sense��. Reaching outside
the classroom and moving away from formal content, it consists of using SCE to promote a
weekly debate with students. Having started in January, every week a different student would
post a topic, some context and a few questions on a blog in order to kickoff the discussion.
This discussion took place synchronously, using comments on the post. Because it requires
participants to be online simultaneously, a meeting time was previously negotiated and
agreed upon. Participants agreed to meet every Sunday from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. Participation
was optional and there was no kind of reward or compensation other than taking part in the
Journal of Literacy and Technology
238
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
discussion and sharing personal thoughts and opinions. The topics discussed were very
diverse and can be seen in the following table:
Table 1.
Discussion Themes
month Discussion theme
January
Young writers
Teenage pregnancy
First Sexual Intercourse
STD (Sexually transmitted diseases)
February
Media
Drugs
Doping and performance enhancing
drugs
Can a teacher be a friend?
March
Domestic Violence
Homosexuality
April
Sports in Adolescence
Music festivals
Precocious Youth
Young people and social networks
In the period covered in this analysis, 18 students (from a total of 24) took part in the
discussions. The following chart illustrates the distribution of activities within of the group:
Journal of Literacy and Technology
239
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Figure 12. Activity distributed by participant/user type/role
As can be seen in the previous chart, from January to April, there were 14 posts, each
for a different topic, generating 752 student comments. An empirical analysis of the
comments indicates that the teacher took on the role of mediator, moderating the discussion:
the students played the most active role, The following chart details the distribution of the
blog activity throughout the time considered in this analysis:
Figure 13. Activity - monthly distribution
The graph shows that after a very promising beginning, the blog activity decreased
and became more stable. Much like in other cases described before, in March, in the weeks
Journal of Literacy and Technology
240
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
corresponding to the Easter holidays, there is a further decline in the number of interventions.
If we overlap the data from the graph with the topics covered in the discussions, in January
all but one dealt with sexuality. These topics appeal to the target audience and seem to arise
their curiosity. If you go through the comments, you can see there are still many myths and
misconceptions surrounding these matters. In addition to the sensitivity and the intimate
nature of these particular subjects, the fact that the debate was public had an impact in the
discussions. When discussing and commenting on this project, other teachers referred that
they followed the blog and the interactions but didn��t feel confortable enough to engage in
the discussions, given their personal nature.
Even though the students taking part in the debates belonged to the same class and
had know each other for at least two years, after the first discussion many revealed other
sides of their personalities. In the first discussion, for example, one of the students shared a
passage of poem he wrote. His classmates, who were not aware of his interest in poetry,
reacted immediately, expressing their surprise. Students�� engagement in the discussions
wasn��t limited to text. They shared many links related to the topics being discussed, adding to
the debate.
Conclusion
The current activity of SCS is not limited to the practices briefly described above. SCS is
already a platform where information, knowledge and experiences can be shared and can be
considered a quality step forward towards the elimination of hierarchical institutional
barriers. To some extent, the use cases described evidence that SCS can help institutions
overcome these barriers: teachers and students are at the same level, the only difference
between them lying on the setting and the role they play at a given moment. In the schools
described it is usual for students to ask questions regarding curricular content. These
Journal of Literacy and Technology
241
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
questions are answered not only by other students, but also by teachers. Moving beyond
independent projects or individual blogs, the schools�� digital wall are used to showcase
different activities and to discuss all sorts of issues, prompting and adding value to the
interactions taking place.
SCS is a Web 2.0 platform based on SAPO core technologies that may promote
communication, sharing and collaboration in schools (K1 through 12). It also reveals the
built-in dimension of Personal Learning Environments (PLE), making it possible to create
and manage personal spaces with all the PLE features, within the institutional whole that
makes up a school. The focus on the platform should not, however, be viewed from a technic
standpoint that instrumentalises the PLE, but rather from a humanist perspective that values
the individual or groups of individuals and their control over their learning activities – both
formal and non-formal (Fiedler & Väljataga, 2010). SCS can, therefore, be considered an
institutional supported PLE in which the focus is on the schools�� commitment as a whole,
rather than on isolated initiatives from teachers or students. As we have seen from the uses
cases, in SCS, each school establishes its own network, using elements of their community.
This option can be seen as a limiting aperture, but is related with privacy issues mostly due to
the age of the target audience. This fact was particularly relevant in schools A and B.
Christensen et al. (2008) refers to disruptive innovation not only as something concerned
with the improvement of a product (as sustaining innovation) but also with a radical change
of paradigm and principles that underlie the product or process. Disruptive processes usually
take place in smaller groups, slowly and gradually being adopted by larger groups. Of the
cases described, this can be best seen in school B5, where SCS has been the catalyst for
change. With an initial small group of active participants, its use has steadily spread to the
rest of the school and is already promoting change in practices and procedures.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
242
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Angehrn, et al. (2009) identify some characteristics that a platform that supports and
sustains innovation process should incorporate:
��Collaboration, knowledge sharing and exchange, reciprocal trust, recognized
ownership, reinforcing and enlarging innovation stake-holders�� networks, clear
network visualization, simple and reliable technology (��): all these factors need to be
taken into account to develop effective IT tools aimed at supporting and boosting
innovation processes.��
Angehrn, et al., 2009, p. 207
Even though some of the characteristics mentioned by Angehrn, et al. do not depend on
the technological platform itself but rather on use, SCS can be viewed through these lenses in
order to verify if it meets the conditions thought necessary for innovation.
Christensen et al. (2010) argue that combining change and innovation, and using
technology as a catalyst for a disruptive, student-centered process, can be the key to have a
school fitting the values of today��s knowledge society. The same authors also suggest that the
personalization of teaching accommodates students�� multiple intelligences, as postulated by
Gardner (1993) and can play a pivotal role in this process.
BA can be translated as place and is defined as ��a shared space that serves as foundation of
knowledge creation�� (Nonaka & Konno, 2005, p. 1). Even though there are pieces of
evidence that suggest it can become BA, and thus promote disruptive innovation, it is still
early to draw definite conclusions. If in fact SCS is becoming part of the school ecosystem,
only time will tell if these changes will be sustainable on the long run.
Acknowledgement
A special thank you those who contributed to this paper especially to Sandra Vasconcelos and
Jorge Braz. Research done in partnership with the PTDC/CPE-CED/114130/2009 project,
Journal of Literacy and Technology
243
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
funded by FEDER funds through the Operational Programme for Competitiveness Factors -
COMPETE and National Funds through FCT - Foundation for Science and Technology
(Portugal).
Journal of Literacy and Technology
244
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
References
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., Johnson, C. W., & com, A. (2008).
Disrupting class: How
disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns (Vol. 98): McGraw-Hill
New York.
Drucker, P. F. (2002). The discipline of innovation.
Harvard Business Review, 80, 95-104.
Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2009). Innovation and Creativity in Education and
Training in the EU Member States: Fostering Creative Learning and Supporting
Innovative Teaching: Literature review on Innovation and Creativity in E&T in the
EU Member States (ICEAC).
JRC Technical Note, 52374.
Figueiredo, A. (2009).
Innovating in Education, Educating for Innovation. 7th EDEN Open
Classroom Conference - The European School 2.0. Oporto.
Miles, M. (1998). Finding keys to school change: a 40-year odyssey.
International
handbook of educational change, 1, 37-69.
Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (2005). THE CONCEPT OF" Ba": BUILDING A FOUNDATION
FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION.
Knowledge management: critical perspectives on
business and management, 2(3), 53.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995).
The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation: Oxford University Press, USA.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Nagata, A. (2000). A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: a new
perspective on the theory of the firm.
Industrial and corporate change, 9(1), 1-20.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
245
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Pais, F., Santos, C., & Pedro, L. (2012).
Sapo Campus Schools as a Disruptive Innovation
Tool: Could it be the Educational Ba? Paper presented at the PLE Conference
Proceedings.
Santos, C., & Pedro, L. (2009). SAPO Campus: a social media platform for Higher
Education.
Research, Reflections and Innovations in Integrating ICT in Education, 2,
1104-1108.
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., Johnson, C. W., & com, A. (2008).
Disrupting class: How
disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns (Vol. 98): McGraw-Hill
New York.
Drucker, P. F. (2002). The discipline of innovation.
Harvard Business Review, 80, 95-104.
Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., & Punie, Y. (2009). Innovation and Creativity in Education and
Training in the EU Member States: Fostering Creative Learning and Supporting
Innovative Teaching: Literature review on Innovation and Creativity in E&T in the
EU Member States (ICEAC).
JRC Technical Note, 52374.
Figueiredo, A. (2009).
Innovating in Education, Educating for Innovation. 7th EDEN Open
Classroom Conference - The European School 2.0. Oporto.
Miles, M. (1998). Finding keys to school change: a 40-year odyssey.
International
handbook of educational change, 1, 37-69.
Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (2005). THE CONCEPT OF" Ba": BUILDING A FOUNDATION
FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION.
Knowledge management: critical perspectives on
business and management, 2(3), 53.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
246
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995).
The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation: Oxford University Press, USA.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Nagata, A. (2000). A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: a new
perspective on the theory of the firm.
Industrial and corporate change, 9(1), 1-20.
Pais, F., Santos, C., & Pedro, L. (2012).
Sapo Campus Schools as a Disruptive Innovation
Tool: Could it be the Educational Ba? Paper presented at the PLE Conference
Proceedings.
Santos, C., & Pedro, L. (2009). SAPO Campus: a social media platform for Higher
Education.
Research, Reflections and Innovations in Integrating ICT in Education, 2,
1104-1108.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
247
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Analysis of the Future Professionals' PLEs as Lifelong Learning Basic
Skill: Presenting the CAPPLE Project
Dr. Paz Prendes
Research Professor in Educational Technology
Director of The Group of Research in Educational Technology (GITE)
e-Learning Coordinator
University of Murcia
Dr. Linda Castañeda
Senior Lecturer in Educational Technology
Department of Didactics and School Organization
University of Murcia
Email: lindcaq@um.es
Journal of Literacy and Technology
248
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Abstract
In this paper we want to present the CAPPLE Project, a research project centred on
the exploration and understanding of Personal Learning Environments (PLEs). In
understanding PLEs one can find out a deficit in fundamental research concerning the
structure and composition of learners PLE in higher education. The CAPPLE Project
addresses this issue by describing and analysing the prospects for the Personal Learning
Environments (PLEs) of future Spanish professionals. It includes the analysis of this in
technical, functional and graphical terms. The project is looking for the PLEs of the Spanish
professionals with potentially an immediate incorporation into the labour market of every
area of knowledge, in other words, senior students in Spanish universities. The main goal is
not just to describe those PLEs, but trying to explore the underlying trends and models and, at
the same time, discover the implications of these conclusions in the education in general and
in the Spanish Higher Education Institutions, in particular. For its purposes, the project is
using a mixed methodological approach. A variety of research methods such as expert
discussions, survey, workshops, diagram analysis, is applied in order to provide a strong
research perspective and guarantee solid research. CAPPLE project in its first version is
working with fundings from the National Ministry of Economy and Sustainability for three
years (2013-2016. project reference EDU2012-33256). This paper presents the CAPPLE
project and gives an overview about the methodological approach, including tasks and the
project schedule. CAPPLE is an ambitious, complex and multidisciplinary project. This
project can have a direct impact on the fundamental research on PLEs (modeling, analytical
tools, naturalistic evidence of their existence, and so on), as well as on institutional strategies
surrounding them, both for initial professional learning and also basic education.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
249
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Introduction
The concept of PLEs gives everybody a background to reflect on the value of systematic
organization and building of own environments to learn. PLE is an environment that will
grow and continuously change throughout life. The basic idea is quite simple. If teachers
teach students how to learn habitually on the Internet (continuously building, managing and
improving their PLEs), students will continue developing themselves professionally and
personally, in their jobs, workplaces and even at home. Consequently, formal learning – and
universities in this case - must offer to students opportunities to adapt the ��official�� learning
environments implemented in institutions to their own training needs. In parallel, institutions
have to provide students with the necessary skills for managing and enriching their own
personalized environments to learn. The research question followed in this paper is what kind
of strategies students use to organize their PLEs and which strategies come from formal
learning? With the description and analysis of the current PLEs of future professionals, the
aim is to understand what kind of transversal learning contributes to the creations of PLEs.
Answering this question allows to better understand the processes of creation, management
and enrichment of PLEs, as well as which strategies can be applied to improve these
processes in formal education. We understand PLEs are key elements of citizen��s learning
development, as well as a crucial part of a citizen��s digital identity and lifelong learning
competence. The CAPPLE project is funded by the National Minister of Economy and
Sustainability for three years (2013-2016). This paper gives an overview about the state of
the research in the first project year.
Objectives of the project
Journal of Literacy and Technology
250
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
The CAPPLE project – http://www.um.es/ple - is called after its initials in Spanish:
"Competencias para el aprendizaje permanente basado en el uso de PLEs (Entornos
Personales de Aprendizaje): an��lisis de los futuros profesionales y propuestas de mejora", i.e.:
"PLEs (personal learning environments) based lifelong learning skills: analysis of future
professionals and suggestions for improvement", is a national funded project (EDU2012-
33256 Ministry of Economy and Competitivity) in which we attempt to describe and analyse
the prospects for the personal learning environments (PLEs) of future professionals. It
includes the analysis of this in technical and functional terms, learning strategies,
experiences, resources and tools associated. The project is studying professionals with
potentially an immediate incorporation into the labour market of every area of knowledge, in
other words, senior students in universities or vocational training.
Taking into account the current situation of education systems as well as the state of research
in this regard, the overall goal of CAPPLE project is the description and the prospective
analysis of Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) of the Spanish future professionals in all
areas of knowledge. The aim is to understand how these environments are built, what are
their characteristics, what strategies have been used to set them up and which ones are
associated with formal education as well as what type of cross training deficiencies can be
detected. A better understanding of the processes of creating, managing and enrichment of
PLEs would stimulate the development of strategies to improve the empowerment of students
to create PLEs in formal education, understanding that these are key elements of the
educational development of citizens, their digital identity and its life's long learning skill.
This overall goal can be broken down to the following objectives:
Journal of Literacy and Technology
251
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
1. Describing specific strategies and tools used routinely by senior university students from
all areas of knowledge to enrich and manage their learning, inside and outside the classroom.
Especially those that take place in online contexts.
• Designing a reliable and valid instrument for collecting information about the
strategies and tools used by the students to manage and enrich their learning, inside
and outside the classroom, especially in online contexts. These includes tools and
procedures to acquire, manipulate and recreate information individually as well as
collectively, and strategies, tools and processes to share.
• Describing and classifying learning strategies used by students (self/targeted
professional/personal, formal/non-formal/informal) and how students perceive its
relevance.
• Identifying and categorizing ICT tools used by students to learn, both from its
technological aspect (social media, social networks, aggregators, free/owners) as well
as in its functional aspect (publishing tools for collaborative knowledge creation,
reading tools, multimedia information sources).
• For precising if each network tools and learning strategies are used with a specific
function or if used with various functions in different contexts.
2. Analyzing, both technically and functionally the personal learning environments (PLEs) of
the Spanish future professionals from all the knowledge areas.
• Describing and modelling types of Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) that
appear among the students surveyed.
• Identifying parts of such environments and the most common components of these
PLEs.
• Examining the level of awareness that students have about their learning processes
and their own personal environment.
3. Achieving a joint analysis of both the components and the models obtained and its
educational implications regarding the improvement of strategies aimed at enriching the
process of creating and managing PLEs for future professionals the university.
• Analyzing the degree and type of influence given by the students to the formal
educational institution (the university) as provider of these strategies and described
environments, as well as analyzing which of these are perceived by future
professionals as acquired in parallel, transverse or tangential to the university.
• Analysing the differences between the different knowledge areas about the models of
PLEs found, as well as the strategies and tools contained therein.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
252
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
• Identifying the educational implications on initial training regarding the elements and
the models found.
• Identifying, based on student responses, cross-cutting strategies (technological and
training) which would be implemented by Higher Education institutions for the
enrichment of the PLEs of future professionals.
• Making proposals for concrete strategies (technological and training) to be carried out
from university contexts to enrich the process of creating and managing the PLEs of
future professionals.
4. Disseminating the data and conclusions of the project and proposing the extension of its
scope not only the Spanish university, but to the European and international contexts both in
terms of the data being obtained in progression, as the most important conclusions the project
itself.
Methodological approach
This project underlies a very complex research process, not only because we are working in
an "emergent" field and with an emergent concept of PLE in terms of Veletsianos (2010), but
also because following the Cinefyn Framework by Snowden & Boone (2007) we are trying to
analyse a very complex context: the university initial education, where definitively "right
answers can��t be ferreted out" (Snowden & Boone 2007, p. 3). We could include this project
in which MacMillan & Schumaher (2001) called applied research, i.e. research that "focuses
on a practice field and is concerned with the development and application of knowledge
gained in the inquiry into the practice" (MacMillan & Schumaher 2001:23). Specifically, in
this research we focus on the study of educational practices (learning practices, to be precise)
of future Spanish professionals or, what is the same, senior university students. We are going
to analyze their practices to learn, and from those practices, we want to explore the empirical
and analytical relationships that could exist and would allow us to draw some inferences
about these particular realities in the broader scope of our study group.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
253
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
The approach of this study is a mixed approach, basically because what we want to study, and
how we intend to do, corresponds to two approaches (MacMillan & Schumaher 2001):
• A non-experimental quantitative approach in which we try to describe, compare, and
correlate the strategies and tools used by future Spanish professionals to learn
(objective 1 and a part of the objective 2)
• A non-interactive qualitative approach, in which we also intend to analyze and
understand how these strategies and tools are configured, in specific models of
personalized learning environments -one for each person probably, and can also
explain more generalized trends, associating some to the learner characteristics: its
region, age or area of knowledge (goals 2 and 3 of the project).
Consequently, in this research we opted for a design with a mixed methodology, i.e. utilizing
a qualitative and quantitative approach, both the data collection and the analysis of them,
combining these data and analysis, or using them, sometimes for parallel and sometimes
sequentially (Tashakkori & Teddi 2003). Even if taking a varied approach to the object of
study makes it more complex, we opted to retain this mixed approach because of the
advantages of such an approach. According to Newby (2010) these advantages are:
• More and better chances of triangulation of data, by resorting to various ways of
getting data and diverse sources as well, getting not only the measure of anything, but
an appreciation of this phenomenon or reality (Newby 2010, p. 128).
• More and better options to unravel and deploy the object of research. This is
especially helpful in the case of complex processes that must be unravelled for a
better understanding, in this specific case self-regulated learning processes and
personal learning environments.
Furthermore, we understand that it is crucial in this research where will require a display of
the same sample, where we try to modeling particular types of PLEs that we will find, as well
as when we enter the part of educational and institutional implications, the redefinition and
refinement of the research will be desirable. So, as Newby (2010) explains, this type of
approach increases our chances of doing so.
Principal tasks
Journal of Literacy and Technology
254
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
The project objectives explore the object of interest, and describe various lines of work
around these future professionals. Based on the objectives, there are four phases in our
research:
Figure 1. CAPPLE Project phases.
These phases cover all the objectives and based on the methodological approach includes the
following major tasks:
Task 1, Phase 1: Design and validation of instruments for collecting information on
PLEs: If we try to analyse PLEs from a pedagogical perspective as personal learning
approaches, we must begin from a clear perception about what a PLE is and what the
mechanisms of learning that are working behind the PLEs are. Based on the available
literature in the field, and taking into account the lack of unity on the definition of the PLE
concept (Buchem, Attwell & Torres, 2011), we decided to follow the PLE definition by
Castañeda & Adell (2010) as a conceptual base. Castañeda & Adell (2010) define PLE as "a
set of tools, data sources, connections and activities (experiences) that each person use
habitually to learn" and includes. Our conceptual based includes the proposal of Attwell
(2008), in which PLEs include tools, data sources, connections and activities for reading (in
multimedia), reflecting and doing, and sharing. Based on the definition and the PLE structure
as proposed by Castañeda & Adell (2012) and Castañeda & Adell (2013), PLEs mean the
Journal of Literacy and Technology
255
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
knowledge mechanisms that every person uses to learn. The crucial parts a nd components of
PLEs are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. PLE Components (Castañeda & Adell, 2013:20)
Journal of Literacy and Technology
256
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Consequently, if in this project we try to analyse PLEs, we understand we must build an
instrument for collecting data about these components. We also understand that the data
collection couldn��t be only centred on the "isolated" components, we need something that
would provide us some structure to this information; so, we understand that the data
collection must recover information close to what Boekaerts (1997) called ��the self-regulated
learning strategical components��.
The main idea is not to use those concepts (self-regulated learning and this particular PLE's
definition) as a fixed framework, but as discussion starters. In the project, a group of experts
(the project team) is going to develop a model of understanding that will be used as a base for
creating the self-administrated survey. The survey will be used as a principal data collection
instrument that, for reliability, accessibility, ease of use and ease of treatment, will collect a
wide range of data. After the survey design, the validation of the instrument will be carried
out in four phases:
• Expert review: A final review of the elements and categories included in the survey, as
well as the scales and structure of it.
• Cognitive interviewing: As Dillman (2007, p. 143) remarks, ��cognitive interviewing
has been developed determining whether respondents comprehend questions as by the
survey sponsor, and whether questions can be answered accurately��. It is a very
simple technique that can provide information to explore.
• Pre-test piloting: Piloting will be carried out with a pilot sample of 250-300 senior
university students from the 5 areas of knowledge described by the Spanish Ministry
of Education: Arts and Humanities, Science, Health Sciences, Social Sciences and
Law, and, Engineering and Architecture.
• Factor analysis: This analysis will try to reinforce the validity and reliability of the
questionnaire elements related to its theoretical bases.
Task 2, Phase 2: Exploration and statistical analysis of the components of PLEs of
senior students in Spanish universities. In this phase the main task includes the exploration of
Journal of Literacy and Technology
257
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
the current state of PLE components and associated mechanisms of the senior students in
Spanish universities. After the validation process, the main collection of data will be carried
out using the survey with a sample of approximately 1.500 students (for a 95% confidence
level), from a total study population of 250.000 students. Even if we cannot work with a
totally random sample, in order to guarantee the representativeness of survey data we will
work with a stratified sample collected in the different regions of the country. After the
collection of data, the first analysis will be based on the statistics that could give us some
information about how our senior students - future professionals - learn and organize their
learning. In this part we have planned not just a ��critical reading�� of the statistical report, but
organizing some focus groups with experts (divided by geographical zones), to analyse the
data, from the general educational perspective, as well as from the Higher Education
institutional perspective.
Task 3, Pase 3: Diagraming PLEs and understanding the underlying models. In order
to go deeper in the exploration of other ways for analysing PLEs, in this project we are going
to analyse PLEs, also, from the graphical point of view. Following some studies conducted
before by other authors (e.g. Willson, 2008; Casquero et al. 2010, Casquero, 2013, among
others), we consider PLE diagrams as an important research aspect. Therefore, in this project
we have proposed the creation of a tool - the PLE's diagramer - for collecting information and
automatically providing the graphical representation of PLE based on this information.
Consequently, during the data collection process (included in the task 2) and using the
theoretical model and the survey developed as theoretical framework, we are going to
develop a PLE Diagramer Software. Once the whole data (task 2) is collected, we will
resample these – at this time randomly - and enter these sampling data into the diagramer.
The main idea is to obtain a graphical representation of the existence and nature of PLE
Journal of Literacy and Technology
258
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
components, as well as the relationships between them. Then, the diagrams corresponding to
the resample data- will be analysed, first in small groups by some experts, and then together
in a greater group of discussion. The idea is trying to detect PLE graphical models if there,
trends, special relationships between concepts, mechanisms, even styles related to gender,
area of knowledge and so on. Additionally, after the analysis, if the developed tool and the
conclusions are relevant, we have the intention of making the tool accessible to public in the
Web, as a mechanism for self-evaluation and improving own PLEs.
Task 4, Phase 4: External analysis, models catalogue and institutional implications of
data. The final part of the project will have a wider and global perspective of the preliminary
conclusions we have obtained on the previous phases. We consider crucial that, after some
particular analysis it must be done a global one, which could relate every part into usable
conclusions, for research, for educational practice, as well as for the theoretical framework of
the field. For this part of the project, we will work, not only with the panel members of the
research team, but with a group of international experts who act as the project's international
advisory board.
In addition, this discussion will be held in parallel in Spanish and English, trying to get the
most out of the skills of our experts. It is expected that the analysis will be done over in two
face to face working days with 3 main sessions: a discussion session in English, Spanish
discussion session and a plenary session. The idea is that experts will meet them in two
consecutive groups of work; a discussion group in English, and a discussion group in
Spanish. Therefore, researches will be assigned to a discussion group mainly decided based
on which language is more comfortable to engage in a discussion of this draft. All experts
may attend the two sessions of discussion, but in one of them they could just participate as a
spectator. Thus, the two discussion groups have different members, with only two exceptions:
Journal of Literacy and Technology
259
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
one of the researchers of the core group, which will act as coordinator of the meetings,
moderator and facilitator, and another, which will act as rapporteur and documentary of the
same.
In these discussions we will not only discuss the PLE modelling analyses made in the
previous phase, but since all the findings also have phase 2, we will address in the discussion
groups which are the educational and institutional implications and important conclusions we
have reached with the data. Later there will be a plenary session work (with both groups),
which will contain the conclusions of both arguments. At the same plenary meeting, and once
exposed the conclusions, we will create working groups to draft and document a catalogue of
models and their components as well as the proposals and implications suggested by the
group. These new working groups will be coordinated by researchers, that will feature the
work of others not attending the same. Additionally, we try to include in this new analysis
practical proposals consistent with the conclusions we have obtained. This is the time to
emphasize that we do not understand the goal of this project to develop a model catalogue of
desirable or good PLEs, but to try to analyse what PLE models are used by current and future
professionals and to provide explanations, suggestions and proposals about what this means
in the face of education and formal training.
In order to achieve every objective -and task- in the three years period of the project, we have
programmed some periods only dedicated to one phase or main task - for concentrating our
resources and efforts - and some periods with activities in parallel. The schedule is described
in Table 1.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
260
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Table 1. CAPPLE Project Schedule
Current and future steps
At the moment of writing this paper, we are still in the middle of the first phase. We have just
started the questionnaire validation process, so we do not have data for sharing yet. We are in
the middle of an ambitious, complex and multidisciplinary project that we firmly believe that
may have impact on both fundamental research in this field (with modelling PLEs, the
creation of a tool for analyzing and diagramming them, over and above the empirical
evidence of the PLE's nature), as well as institutional applications of its findings to the initial
vocational training strategy, and why not, even basic education.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
261
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
We think it's an innovative proposal and intends to take another step in research on PLEs. We
actually don't know much about how will be the end of this research, we are trying to learn
and improving it day to day. That is the challenge that we propose and we present it to you
for continue discussing and learning.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
262
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
References
Adell, J. & Castañeda, L. (2010). Los Entornos Personales de Aprendizaje (PLEs): una nueva
manera de entender el aprendizaje. In Roig Vila, R. & Fiorucci, M. (Eds.)
Claves para
la investigaci��n en innovaci��n y calidad educativas. La integraci��n de las
Tecnolog��as de la Informaci��n y la Comunicaci��n y la Interculturalidad en las aulas.
Stumenti di ricerca per l��innovaziones e la qualit�� in ��mbito educativo. La Tecnologie
dell��informazione e della Comunicaziones e l��interculturalit�� nella scuola.Alcoy:
Marfil – Roma TRE Universita degli studi. Retrieved From
http://hdl.handle.net/10201/17247
Attwell, G. (2008). Personal Learning Environments: The future of education? [Slideshow].
Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/GrahamAttwell/personal-learning-
enviroments-the-future-of-education-presentation
Buchem, I., Attwell, G. & Torres-Kompen, R. (2011). Understanding Personal Learning
Environments: Literature review and synthesis through the Activity Theory lens. p��gs.
1-33. In the
Proceedings of the The PLE Conference 2011, 10th to 12th of July 2011,
Southampton, United Kingdom. Retrieved from http://journal.webscience.org/658/
Boekaerts, M. (1997). ��Self-regulated learning: a new concept embraced by researchers,
policy makers, educators, teachers, and students��.
Learning and instruction
(Tarrytown, NY), vol. 7, no. 2, p. 151–86.
Casquero, O. (2013). Composici��n y estructura de redes personales en entornos de
aprendizaje personales. In L. Castañeda y J. Adell (Eds
.), Entornos Personales de
Aprendizaje: Claves para el ecosistema educativo en red (pp. 151-160). Alcoy:
Marfil.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
263
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Casquero, O., Portillo, J., Ovelar, R., Romo, J. & Benito, M. (2010). Towards an eLearning
2.0 provisioning strategy for universities. In
Proceedings of the The PLE Conference
2010, 8 y 9 de julio de 2010, Barcelona, España. ISSN: 2182-8229
Castañeda, L. & Adell, J. (2011). El desarrollo profesional de los docentes en entornos
personales de aprendizaje (PLE). In Roig Vila, R. y Laneve, C. (Eds.)
La pr��ctica
educativa en la Sociedad de la Informaci��n: Innovaci��n a trav��s de la investigaci��n /
La pratica educativa nella Societ�� dell��informazione: L��innovazione attraverso la
ricerca. Alcoy: Marfil. 83-95 Retrieved From
http://digitum.um.es/xmlui/bitstream/10201/24647/1/CastanedaAdell2011preprint.pdf
Castañeda, L. & Adell, J. (2012). Future Teachers Looking for their PLEs: the Personalized
Learning Process Behind it all. In
Proceedings of the The PLE Conference 2012, 11th
to 13th of July of 2012, Aveiro, Portugal. ISSN: 2182-8229. Retrieved From
http://revistas.ua.pt/index.php/ple/article/view/1440
Castañeda, L. & Adell, J. (2013) (Eds.).
Entornos Personales de Aprendizaje: claves para el
ecosistema educativo en red. Alicante: Marfil. Retrieved From
http://digitum.um.es/xmlui/bitstream/10201/30427/1/CastanedayAdelllibroPLE.pdf
Book available complete o by parts on www.um.es/ple/libro
Dillman, D. (2007).
Mail and Internet Surveys The Tailored Design Method Second Edition
2007 Update with New Internet, Visual, and Mixed-Mode Guide. New Jersey: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001).
Research in education: A conceptual introduction
(5th ed.). New York: Longman.
Journal of Literacy and Technology
264
Special Edition: Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014
ISSN: 1535-0975
Newby, P. (2010). Research Methods for Education. Essex: Pearson.
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2003).
Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral
Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Veletsianos, G. (2010). A definition of emerging technologies for education. In
Emerging
technologies in distance education (pp. 3-22). Athabasca, CA: AU Press. ISBN:
9781897425763. Retrieved from
http://www.aupress.ca/books/120177/ebook/01_Veletsianos_2010-
Emerging_Technologies_in_Distance_Education.pdf
Wilson, S. (2008). Patterns of personal learning environments.
Interactive Learning
Environments, 16(1), 17–34. doi:10.1080/1049482070177266.
