Understanding Personal Learning Environments: Literature review and
synthesis through the Activity Theory lens
Ilona Buchem, Beuth University of Applied Sciences Berlin, Germany –
buchem@beuth-hochschule.de
Graham Attwell, Pontydysgu, UK – graham10@mac.com
Ricardo Torres, Citilab, Spain – ricardo.torres.kompen@gmail.com
Abstract
This paper represents a scientific analysis of a broad range of publications
surrounding the field of Personal Learning Environments (PLEs). Personal Learning
Environments can be viewed as a concept related to the use of technology for
learning focusing on the appropriation of tools and resources by the learner.
Capturing the individual activity, or how the learner uses technology to support
learning, lies at the heart of the PLE concept. The central research question guiding
this review was: What are the characteristic, distinguishing features of Personal
Learning Environments? This paper argues that PLEs can be viewed as complex
activity systems and analysed using the Activity Theory framework to describe their
key elements and the relationships between them. Activity Theory provides a
framework of six interrelated components: subject, object, tools, rules, community
and division of labour. In referencing over 100 publications, encompassing
conference papers, reports, reviews, and blog articles, this paper takes an activitytheory perspective to deconstruct the way central aspects related to PLEs are
addressed in different publications. The aim of this study is to create a better
understanding of PLEs and to develop a knowledge base to inform further research
and effective practice. The literature review presented in this paper takes a broader
view on PLEs recognising that research in this field stems from different scientific
communities and follows different perspectives.
Keywords:
Personal Learning Environments, literature review, Activity Theory, Grounded Theory
1. Introduction
1.1. Personal Learning Environments
The concept of Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) emerged from discussions
about Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) and gained considerable attention
through the publication of a diagram illustrating a future vision of VLEs by Scott
Wilson.1 Since that time, a multitude of different conceptualisations and visualisations
of Personal Learning Environments have been published in journals, books, wikis
and blogs. A collection of different PLE diagrams can be viewed on the edtechpost
wiki.2
The Wikipedia entry on the history of Personal Learning Environments dates the
earliest recorded use of the concept of a Personal Learning Environment as far back
as artificial intelligence (AI) research in 1976. While this reference cannot be clearly
linked to the current conceptualisations of PLE, we can assume that the beginnings
1http://www.flickr.com/photos/elifishtacos/90944650/
2http://edtechpost.wikispaces.com/PLE+Diagrams
of PLE lie in the early years of the 21st century, inspired by the work of Oleg Liber,
Dave Tosh, Scott Wilson, Graham Attwell and Stephen Downes. It is claimed that the
first recorded mention of PLE as a concept is to be found in a paper by Olivier and
Liber (2001).
Since the PLE Session at the JISC/CETIS Conference in 2004, the pioneering
architectural models by Scott Wilson in 2005 and the seminal publication on ELearning 2.0 by Stephen Downes (2005), the effects of ongoing changes in web
technologies on education have been articulated in a number of visionary papers and
blog posts, including Harmelen (2006), Attwell (2007), Wilson, 2007, Johnson (2008),
Wild (2008), Chatti (2010), Drexler (2010) and Downes (2010).
Bloggers on PLEs include George Siemens3, Stephen Downes4, Dave Cormier5,
Graham Attwell6, Scott Wilson7, Mohamed Amine Chatti8, Rita Kop9, Ismael PeñaLopez10, Tony Karrer11, Steve Wheeler12, Michele Martin13, Terry Anderson14, Martin
Ebner15 and many more.
There have been a number of initiatives related to PLEs, in different formats,
including:
●
●
●
●
●
●
Courses, e.g. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), such as PLENK201016
Conferences, e.g. The PLE Conference17
Scientific workshops, e.g. MUPPLE workshops18
Online symposia, e.g. PLE and PLN Online Symposium19
Podcasts, e.g. MUPPLE lecture series20 and
Mediacasts, e.g. the PLE Vimeo Group21
There are also special issues of scientific journals devoted to PLE, such as a special
issue in Digital Education Review22, International Journal of Virtual and Personal
Learning Environments (IJVPLE)23, Interactive Learning Environments (ILE)24.
3http://www.elearnspace.org
4http://www.downes.ca/
5http://davecormier.com/edblog/
6http://www.pontydysgu.org
7http://scottbw.wordpress.com/
8http://mohamedaminechatti.blogspot.com
9http://ritakop.blogspot.com
10http://ictlogy.net
11http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/
12http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.com/
13http://www.michelemmartin.com/
14http://terrya.edublogs.org/
15http://elearningblog.tugraz.at/
16http://connect.downes.ca/
17http://pleconference.citilab.eu,
http://www.pleconf.com
http://sites.google.com/site/muppleworkshop/
19http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/blogs/ples
20http://www.stellarnet.eu/index.php/tools/create_xml.php?pID=53
21http://vimeo.com/groups/ple2011
22http://greav.ub.edu/der/index.php/der
23http://www.igi-global.com/bookstore/titledetails.aspx?titleid=1134
24http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10494820.asp
18
There have been a number of research projects on PLEs. Some of the most
prominent EU research projects include Responsive Open Learning Environments
(ROLE)25, Personal E-Learning In Communities And Networking Spaces
(PELICANS)26, Mature IP (Womble)27 and PLEbaum28. Distinctive national projects
within the EU include among others the PLE projects at TU Graz29, Sapo Campus30,
and the University of Southampton31. Some of the current projects on PLEs outside of
the EU include the project by the NRC Institute for Information Technology
(Canada)32 and the Mahara project in New Zeleand33.
There are different research strands on PLEs including a more technologicallyoriented research strand (e.g. Chatti et al., 2010a, 2010b; Harmelen, 2006; Milligan
et al. 2006; Wild et al. 2008a, 2008b) and a more pedagogically-oriented research
strand (e.g. Attwell, 2007a, 2007b; Castañeda & Soto, 2010; Downes, 2007; Drexler,
2010). A more detailed discussion on the different views and discourses on PLEs can
be found by among others by Johnson et al. (2007) and Fiedler & Väljataga (2010).
Furthermore there are concepts closely related to PLEs such as personal knowledge
management and e-portfolios (see Ravet, 2007 and Attwell, 2007b for a detailed
discussion on the differences between these concepts). The ideas of Personal
Learning Networks (PLN) and Personal Knowledge Networks (PKN) are also strongly
associated with PLEs, reflecting on the one hand the personal online networks
utilized for learning (with the connotation that such a network spreads beyond the
class or course cohort) and on the other hand both tacit and explicit knowledge (see
Couros, 2010 on PLN and PLE; Chatti et al. 2010 on PKN and PLE).
The different conceptualisations of PLEs are reflected in the myriad of acronyms and
terms to describe Personal Learning Environments, among others “aPLE” (adaptable
PLE)34, “mPLE” (mobile PLEs)35, “iPLEs” (institutional PLEs)36, “PWLE” (Personal
Work and Learning Environment)37, PRP” (Personal Research Portal)38.
1.2
The purpose of this review
The variety of terms, perspectives and conceptualizations as outlined above is
challenging for anyone wishing to design, develop, implement and evaluate PLEs.
The aim of this review is to improve the understanding of PLEs by providing an
overview of key issues addressed in selected publications. The authors
systematically explore the different conceptualizations of PLEs by looking at what
PLE aspects are addressed and how. By comparing the findings from different
publications, this paper synthesises the different conceptualizations into a more
25http://www.role-project.eu/
26http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/beyond-distance-research-alliance/projects/pelicans
27http://mature-ip.eu/
28http://ple-baum.eu/
29http://ple.tugraz.at
30http://campus.ua.sapo.pt/
31http://www.soton.ac.uk/
32http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/projects/iit/personal-learning-environment.html
33http://mahara.org/
34http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/pearson.pdf
35http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/16158/1/InformalMobileLearning_modification_final_0718.pdf
36http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10494820.2010.500553
37http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2007/06/personal-work-and-learning-environments.html
38http://journal.km4dev.org/index.php/km4dj/article/view/92
holistic view based on the Activity Theory framework. The additional value of this
research is the creation of a comprehensive and publicly available repository of
publications on PLEs which can be accessed and supplemented by anyone
interested in this topic39.
1.3
Research question
The research team defined the following central question to guide this review:
What characterises PLE, i.e. what are the core categories and their properties
addressed in literature? How can these be mapped into from the activity theory
framework?
By asking this question we are not only investigating the different conceptualisations
of PLEs and their constituting elements but also discuss the potential of the activity
theory as an integrative methodological framework for examining PLE and their
interactions with other activity systems.
2. Research background and framework
This research is motivated by different conceptualisations of PLEs in current
publications. The authors of this report are members of the organising committee of
the PLE Conference40 and have been involved in a number of research projects
related to PLEs, such as Mature-IP (FP7/TEL)41, Mediencommunity (BMBF/ESF)42
and the PELICANS project (University of Leicester and Citilab-Spain)43.
2.1
Research background
As with any emerging paradigm, PLEs has been a hotly debated topic. Some of the
ongoing discussions include:
●
●
●
●
●
Is PLE a technological or pedagogical concept or both?
Can Personal Learning Environments be institutionalised?
Are VLEs and PLEs opposed or complementary environments?
What are the central distinguishing features of PLEs?
What are the basic (if any) components of a PLE?
The myriad of open questions makes clear that the PLE concept necessitates
examination of some common assumptions and practices. This report expands upon
previous literature reviews by Johnson, et al. (2006), Schaffert & Kalz (2009), Fiedler
& Väljataga (2010). We assume that this is the first systematic analysis of PLEs
based on the Activity Theory model. As such it is intended to serve as a starting point
for further exploration of PLEs. Owing to the rapidly increasing number of
publications on PLEs as well as constraints of time and resources faced by the
authors, this review cannot be exhaustive. The results of our analysis merely reflect
some prominent issues raised in the current discourse.
39http://plep.pbworks.com
40http://pleconference.citilab.eu/,
41
http://www.pleconf.com/
http://mature-ip.eu/
http://www.mediencommunity.de/
43 http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/beyond-distance-research-alliance/projects/pelicans
42
2.2
The original research framework
This review uses an Activity Theory framework to analyse and categorise different
conceptualizations of PLEs. The selection of the Activity Theory framework emerged
during the first literature review phase which was based on grounded theory.
The original framework for this paper was composed of the following three tiers of
analytic categories (Figure 2.1):
● Top tier with the three dimensions: “Personal”, “Learning” and “Environment”;
● Middle tier with two domain perspectives: “Pedagogy” and “Technology”;
● Bottom tier with a set of core concepts and a scale from “high” to “low”.
Figure 2.1 The preliminary research framework.
However, the first reading and analysis of selected literature led us to the conclusion
that focusing only on the three dimensions at the top tier level as described above
leaves out other central aspects related to PLEs. At the same time the three original
categories are too broad and encompass different notions that need further
disaggregation.
2.3
Activity Theory as an integrated framework
The PLE concept places the focus on the appropriation of different tools and
resources by an individual learner and there is a general agreement on viewing
learners as being situated within a social context which influences the way in which
they use media, participate in activities and engage in communities. Learning
outcomes are considered to be created in the process of tackling the problems and
challenges learners meet in different contexts by using tools and resources leading to
outcomes. The perspective on learning as tool-mediated, situated, object-directed
and collective activity is the basic tenet of Activity Theory (Engeström 1999;
Engeström, 2001).
Activity Theory (AT) has been used as a framework to explore educational
innovations and innovative learning spaces (Trish & Du Toit, 2010) and as a
conceptual framework to analyse and design computer-supported collaborative
learning (Redmiles, 2002; Collins & Margaryan, 2004; Zurita & Nussbaum, 2006),
software development (Barthelmess & Anderson, 2002), mobile learning (Sharples et
al. 2005) and the evaluation of learning technologies (Scanlon & Issroff, 2005).
AT is a theoretical framework advanced by Engeström (1999, 2001) and is
historically rooted in semiotics and the construction of meaning by Ogden and
Richards (1923), the cultural-historical psychology of Vygotsky (1978) and the
general activity theory by Leontiev (1981). It conceptualises both individual and
collective practices as developmental processes of the context in which human
activities normally takes place (Engeström, 1987; Engeström, 1999). The concept of
learning activity proposed by Engeström (1987) is defined as “expansive learning”:
“The motive of this activity is to learn how to acquire skills and knowledge and solve
problems by expanding the tasks into objectively novel activity systems, resulting
eventually not just in acquiring and solving the given, but in creating tasks and
problems out of the larger activity context.”
According to Leontiev (1978), the concept of activity entails a complete system of
human practices. Engeström (1987) conceptualised a representational model to
portray the various elements of an activity system. The activity triangle model
representing an activity system combines the various components into a unified
whole (Figure 2.2). The primary actors in an activity system are subjects interacting
with objects to achieve desired outcomes. Human interactions with each other and
with objects are mediated through the use of tools, rules and division of labour.
Mediators represent the nature of relationships that exist within and between
participants of an activity in a given context.
Figure 2.2 Key components of an activity system.
From this perspective, focusing on the three aspects - personal, learning and
environment - means disregarding other key elements of the activity system, i.e.
rules, community and division of labour. These make up what Engeström (1999) calls
the “social basis” of the activity system. The social basis situates human activities in
a broader context. All elements of the triangle can be viewed as elements of the
context, in which an activity system is operating. Based on the results of our analysis
we can conclude that the social basis tends to be disregarded in a number of
conceptualisations and implementations of PLEs, thus not considering all key
aspects of the activity system.
Translated into the activity theory model presented above, the original framework
represents the top triangle related to subject, object and tools (Figure 2.3).
Figure 2.3 The original framework as top triangle.
Based on the ATR we propose an extended framework for examining PLEs,
considering the six central aspects of the activity system, i.e. (1) subject, (2) object
(3) tools, (4) community, (5) rules and (6) division of labour (Figure 2.4).
Figure 2.4 Extended research framework
This conceptual change may be seen as parallel to the expansion of the basic
Vygotskian triangle (subject - object - tools) by Engeström (1987), aiming to
represent the social elements in an activity system.
We operationalise the constituting elements of PLEs as activity systems as follows:
(1) The Subject of a PLE is the person (or persons defined by Engeström, 1987, as a
“collective subject”), i.e. a primary actor/agent, who is source of an activity and the
starting point for the analysis. The relationship between the subject and object is
mediated by tools.
(2) The Object of an activity is a physical or symbolic object towards which a subject
moves with the purpose of attaining certain outcomes. We consider objects, in the
sense of an “objective'', as needs or a desires followed by the subject that motivates
the activity, giving it a specific direction.
(3) Tools mediate an activity. Subjects employ tools to interact with objects in order to
achieve desired outcomes. We distinguish between external tools comprising of
digital (e.g. social media, digital resources) and non-digital tools (e.g. printed books)
and internal tools (e.g. learning plans, strategies). Any activity is motivated by the
possibility of transforming objects into outcomes while using tools to mediate this
transformation (e.g. using blogging software as a tool to create an article to reflect on
learning).
(4) Community is a larger group including the subject as a part of the community.
Learning is situated in a community. Communities share the same objects, are
governed by rules and divide tasks among their participants.
(5) Rules are norms, conventions and values and represent a way of minimising
conflicts in an activity system. Rules affect how the subjects move towards the object
and how they interact within a community.
(6) Division of Labour is related to the organisation of the community and comprises
roles, tasks and power relationships in an activity system. The Division of Labour
mediates between the objects and the community.
Activity Theory, as a theory of learning and change, provides an integrative
framework for examining PLEs as activity systems, with the subject as the starting
point for the analysis.
3. Research methodology
Below we outline which publications we used for the analysis, the criteria we used for
their selection and the methods we used for analysis.
3.1
Literature sources and selection criteria
This paper presents and discusses findings from a review of a wide range of
publications related to PLEs published between 2006 and 2011. The publications
taken into consideration derive from:





Scientific journals (e.g. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning
Environments, Interactive Learning Environments),
Conference and workshop proceedings (e.g. The PLE Conference 2010,
MUPPLE Workshops):
Course materials (e.g. Personal Learning Environments Networks and Knowledge
2010),
Project Reports (e.g. EU ROLE project, SAPO CAMPUS);
Expert blog articles (e.g. Graham Attwell, Mohamed Chatti, George Coursos,
Stephen Downes, George Siemens, Steve Wheeler).
We based our selection on Internet searches using a number of different search
strings related to PLEs, focusing on scientific studies (including journals, web
publications, conference papers) and blog articles written in English, German and
Spanish languages. We also tapped into the repository of relevant publications from
the PLE Conference 2011 including full44 and short papers45. We cannot claim to be
comprehensive but hope that the involvement of three different language groups has
at least allowed a broad coverage of the available literature.
The selection of publications for the review was based on the key words “personal
learning environment”, “PLE” and an additional set of criteria for academic/research
papers. These include:


Structural coherence (e.g. a central claim or an idea that guides the structure; a
clear focus; a conclusion) and
Thematic coherence (e.g. demonstrating knowledge of a subject, conclusions and
reflections following from the topic, ideas supported with evidence, etc.).
The list of publications used for this review can be found in the PLEP wiki.46
3.2
Methodological approach
The methodological approach to analysing publications selected for this review is
based on the Grounded Theory (GT) as a systematic methodology focusing on the
generation of theory from data in the process of conducting research:
“[...] a set of rigorous research procedures leading to the emergence of conceptual
categories. These concepts/categories are related to each other as a theoretical
explanation of the action(s) that continually resolves the main concern of the
participants in a substantive area.”47
One of the central aims of the application of the GT methodology is to discover
emerging categories and identify the core categories. Core categories emerge
through iterative analysis and coding and sampling of further data in order to develop
conceptual leads (Holton, 2007). Core categories reoccur frequently in the data and
conceptually explain stable, latent patterns (Holton, 2007).
3.3 The review process
This literature review was conducted iteratively in three stages:
The first stage was based on the preliminary model (Figure 2.1). With the aim of
allowing the emergence of concepts from the data, the authors focused on abstract
conceptualizations as opposed to descriptive interpretations. The method of constant
comparison was applied to discover patterns in the data. We applied coding as the
core process in the GT methodology (Holton, 2007). The initial attempt was to
conduct a dimensional analysis. We marked texts with codes related to three
dimensions, i.e. “P” for “personal”, “L” for “learning” and “E” for “environment”. This
tentative framework guided the discovery of core issues. While remaining open to the
emergence of concepts, we avoided forcing this preconceived model upon the data
and discovered such missing aspects as “context” and “social network”. Arriving at
this insight was possible due to abstraction of conceptual ideas from empirical data
as part of GT. The abstraction from a descriptive to a conceptual level raised the
maturity level of our analysis.
44http://pleconference.citilab.eu/?page_id=230
45http://pleconference.citilab.eu/?page_id=232
46http://plep.pbworks.com
47http://www.groundedtheory.com/what-is-gt.aspx
At the second stage of the analysis we applied the Activity Theory perspective to
guide exploration of emergent concepts (Figure 2.4). Publications were coded for the
six categories: subject, object, tools, rules, community and division of labour, with
descriptive codes serving as indicators. The indicators are used to saturate48 the
different categories and detect categories that do not fit and may call for a new
conceptualisation. A category is saturated when it is rich in detail (properties) and
stable in the face of new data.
The third stage of analysis aimed at identifying the relationships between the
emergent core categories and other elements of the activity system. While striving for
a higher level of abstraction in the naming of codes, the aim of this analysis was to
generate statements about the relationships between concepts (Holton, 2007).
Based on this iterative process of generating conceptual codes within the GT
paradigm, we attempted to apply the principles of “subsequent, sequential,
simultaneous, serendipitous, and scheduled” methodology (Holton, 2007). The
summary of key findings is presented below.
4. Findings
Below we present the core categories and their properties for each of the six
elements of the activity theory triangle. These elements are “subject” (4.1), “object”
(4.2), “tools” (4.3), “community” (4.4), “rules” (4.5) and “division of labour (4.6).
Additionally, we discuss “context” (4.7) as encompassing all six elements.
4.1
Subject
The element “subject” is the primary actor, the source of an activity and the starting
point for the analysis of PLEs. The systemic relationships of the subject are
visualised in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1 Relationships of “subject”
The core dimensions related to the subject are presented in the table below:
A. SUBJECT
Dimensions
48
Properties
In grounded theory, saturation describes the richness of an emerging category in terms of its
properties. A category is saturated when its significant characteristics account for most of the variation
in the data thus rendering the theory dense.
A.1
Ownership
A.1.1 Ownership of objects
The subject can:
 Design learning based on own preferences
 Determine own learning needs and goals
 Break down learning goals to preferred granularity
 Decide about own learning outcomes
 Produce own learning materials and content
A.1.2 Ownership of tools
The subject can:
 Create a learning environment autonomously
 Orchestrate tools and services individually
 Morph and adapt the environment to own needs
 Select, aggregate, modify tools, resources, content
 Exploit and organize common services
A1.3 Ownership of rules
The subject:
 Operates according to an internal set of principles and
values
 Is independent in planning and assessing learning
 Legally owns data, services, resources, content
 Is responsible for managing learning tools, materials,
services, content
 Can establish rules for storing information and content
(e.g. privately, publicly)
 Decides about copyright and reuse
A 1.4 Ownership of community
The subject can:
 Create own groups and establish own communities
 Decide which group to join and to leave
 Get information/ content from multiple communities
A 1.4 Ownership of Division of Labour
The subject can:
 Decide and plan own learning activities
 Design and produce own content
 Design an own personal development plan
 Engage in collaboration and social networking
 Build a Personal Learning Network
A.2
Control
A.2.1 Control over objects:
The subject can
 Negotiate learning goals and outcomes
 Personalise information sources and services
 Manage and organise own learning
 Manage data, services, resources, content


Use technologically-mediated scaffolding and guidance
Use scaffolding and guidance from teachers
A.2.2 Control over tools:
The subject can:
 Select and use tools and resources for learning
according to own needs
 Select potential sources of information
 Reuse and remix content
 Configure design and customize the learning
environment based on user preferences
 Rationalise the learning instruments
A.2.3 Control over 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
A.2.4 Control over community:
The subject can:
 Choose with whom to communicate
 Choose who can communicate with them
 Initiate discussions
A.2.5 Control over Division of Labour:
The subject can:
 Self-monitor own progress
 Engage in collaborative development of educational
resources
 Adjust performance based on feedback to meet
disciplinary standards
 Specify own needs (e.g. user profile) so that the system
can recommend resources, coordinate connections etc.
A.3
Literacy
A.3.1 Literacy related to objects:
The subject is able to:
 Plan, organise and monitor, reflect and critically analyse
own learning
 Develop own learning environment to suit and enable
own style of learning
 Design own learning strategy, structure and organise
own learning steps
 Externalise individual learning intentions (describe
objectives, explicate the design and formation of learning
experience, strategies and evaluation criteria)
 Adapt to new environments and situations
A.3.2 Literacy related to tools:
The subject is able to:
● Select and apply tools to support learning and personal
knowledge management
● Aggregate resources, content and tools from multiple
contexts, sources and communities
● Choose own sources of information and content and
make own judgements about their quality
● Personalise the environment, e.g. profile, avatar, widgets
●
Present own competencies and select evidence
A.3.3 Literacy related to rules:
The subject is able to:
● Establish own criteria for obtaining learning outcomes
● Establish own criteria for assessing the quality of different
sources of information and content
● Act according to the principles of autonomy, diversity,
openness and connectedness,
A.3.4 Literacy related to community:
The subject is able to:
● Use social networks to support learning
● Collaborate and participate in communities as part of the
new learning culture
● Apply communicative skills to interact with different
communities
● Decide who and what to trust
A.3.5 Literacy related to Division of Labour:
The subject is able to:
● Build and configure own learning environment
● Apply the “do-it-yourself” principle to digital issues
● Integrate different individual contexts
● Create and share digital content
Table 4.1: Core dimensions and properties of “subject”
In relation to “subject” we found “ownership”, “control” and “literacy” to be the core
dimensions of the “subject”. These dimensions are closely related to the notions of
“personal” and “personalised” and to the notions of “autonomy” and “empowerment”.
These concepts are discussed below.
4.1.1 Ownership and control
“Ownership” and “control” are related yet different concepts, both linked to the notion
of “agency” in terms of the human capacity to make choices and to impose those
choices on the world. The subject can “own” the learning environment in a technical
sense (e.g. subject is technically responsible for aggregating and configuring
services), in a legal sense (e.g. the data/content legally belongs to the subject) and in
a psychological sense (e.g. the subject has a sense of ownership). The subject can
also “control” the environment (e.g. the subject can select potential
resources/sources of information, reuse and remix content), i.e. manage the
environment without actually owning it or its constituting parts. From this perspective
control can be associated with personalisation, adaptation or negotiation rather than
with personal ownership, autonomy and independence. The varying degrees of
control and ownership are seldom differentiated in the publications reviewed, leaving
much room for interpretation. There also seems to be little clarity about what type of
ownership and control (e.g. technical, legal, psychological, social) and over which
elements (e.g. information, resources, data, services, etc.) can and should be
exercised by the subject.
4.1.2 Personal and personalisation
There is a remarkable degree of agreement in definitions of “personal” in the
literature with both “ownership” and “control” discussed as indicators of “personal”.
Central to most is the idea of “personal” as changing the nexus of power from
institutions and teachers to learners. This comprises not only the possibility to specify
learning needs, decide about own goals, process and outcomes, but also the
ownership of data, including control and management of this data, ownership of
instrumentalisation, with users being able to define their own instrumentation while
accessing common services, and ownership of orchestration, with users being able to
orchestrate the different services, tools, resources and content.
By constantly comparing data, we found that there is an important duality in the
literature between the notions of “personal” and “personalised”, both addressing
different aspect related to the “subject”. The term “personal” is used to mean “tailored
by the user” while the term “personalized” indicated “tailored by an external entity, for
example an organisation”. Whilst sometimes the terms are used interchangeably, the
term personalisation can also be used to describe functionalities for developing
bespoke pathways through course modules or elements within a Virtual Learning
Environment or even just the ability for more limited personalisation of the (widget
based) features being displayed by a VLE or other Learning Management System in
sense of customisation, such as possibility to change screen display, colour schemes
and layouts, adjust profiles, choose tools for communication, entertainment,
socialization and learning.
We would like to point out that whilst in most cases the term “personal” implies more
fundamental control for the learner in both conceptual and technical terms (especially
as related to actively selecting and combining functions of the environment), there
are cases when the term “personal” is used to describe different approaches to
personalization, such as adaptive or dynamic customisation.
4.1.3 Literacy
Furthermore, a considerable number of publications address the need for the subject
to develop abilities, skills or competencies as prerequisites to developing a PLE.
These include metacognitive skills, including planning, organising, self-monitoring,
self-teaching, self-organisation and self-evaluation, general literacy, including
information literacy, computer literacy, language skills, as well as digital literacy,
including abilities to engage in online communication, participating in online social
networking, creating and sharing digital content. A number of authors state, both from
a normative and empirical perspective, that designing and managing a PLE requires
competencies necessary for complex and integrative approaches, such as creativity,
flexibility, and the ability to adapt to new situations and to solve problems. Only a few
publications discuss what skills, abilities or competencies are necessary for
developing and using a PLE (e.g. Wild et al. 2009).
4.1.4 Autonomy, empowerment and identity
A number of publications address learner autonomy and empowerment. The ideal of
autonomous learning, however, is tempered by concerns over whether learners have
the skills and competence, let alone the motivation, to manage their own learning.
These issues also underpin a concern with empowerment, of how to enable learners
to manage their own learning on one side and how to change the existing power
relationships between learners and institutions on the other. In this respect it is
interesting that the majority of publications come from Higher Education. In this
regard, researchers have drawn attention to the need for a changing role for teachers
and trainers, from purveyors of information and knowledge, to one of supporting and
scaffolding learning. More discussion on changing teacher roles follows in Section
4.6. Autonomy seems to be closely associated with ownership and the ability to
create a self-made, learner-driven learning environment, including creating content
(learners as active and self-directed creators of content) and taking charge of selfsupported and self-regulated learning. Empowerment also seems to be linked to
taking an active role in managing and configuring the system, using different tools to
support different learning tasks and phases and engaging in personal development
planning. Both autonomy and empowerment are mentioned only as concepts, without
any substantial definition or reference to relevant theories or models. Only a few
publications on PLEs are concerned with the issues of identity, in most cases
addressing the necessary ability to develop and manage learners’ own digital
identities.
4.2
Object
The object of an activity is a physical or symbolic object towards which a subject
moves with the purpose of attaining particular outcomes.
Figure 4.2 Relationships of “object”
The following dimensions and properties of an “object” were coded in relation to
PLEs:
B. OBJECT
Dimensions
Properties
B.1
Interest
B.1.1 Related to subject
● Learning something new
● Producing something one can be proud of
● Personal interest in problems to be solved
● Motivated through inquiry and exploration
● Personal development: self-directed, autonomous
development of competencies, skills, knowledge
● Knowledge management, maturing, development
● Reflective practice (as in ePortfolios)
● Identity development
B.1.2 Related to tools
● Understanding changing technology
● Finding out how to choose and use a suite of
different tools to support own learning
B.1.3 Related to community
● Linking of learning to work practices
● Contextualising knowledge
● Developing Personal Learning Networks
B.1.4 Related to rules
● Learning how to engage in online social networks
and community building
● Learning how to manage intellectual property
B.1.5 Related to Division of Labour
● Giving and receiving feedback and
recommendations
● Collaborating and networking in areas of interest
B.2
Participation
B.2.1 Related to subject
● Maintaining the flow of learning activities and events
● Developing capabilities to become effective
knowledge users and learners through participation
● Achieving self-reliance through critical action across
the boundaries of networks
B.2.2 Related to tools
● Possibilities of customization and adaptation
● Possibilities of individual tool aggregation
● Using tools to produce own content and resources
● Using community management tools
B.2.3 Related to community
● Life-stream of a person - publishing and sharing with
one’s own Personal Learning Network (PLN)
●
Engagement in online communication and
collaboration
● Participating in groups according to interests
B.2.4 Related to rules
● Possibilities to initiate communication
● Possibilities of active engagement
B.2.5 Related to Division of Labour
● Supporting others in use of technology and learning
● Receiving recommendations and feedback from
others
● Receiving “intelligent” guidance through noninvasive adaptation mechanisms
B.3
Control
B.3.1 Related to subject
● Learners expect more control of their own learning
● Learners want to determine own learning goals and
outcomes
● Learners want to keep track of personal progress
B.3.2 Related to tools
● Learners expect more control of their learning
resources
● Learners want to select tools and structure an own
learning environment
B.3.3 Related to community
● Students’ leadership in organisations
● Requirement of using the technology at work
B.3.4 Related to rules
● Having access to own resources/content after
leaving an educational institution
● Understanding the new learning culture
● Understanding the paradigm shift in the society
B.3.5 Related to Division of Labour
● Understanding changing roles and practices
● Supporting transitions from education to work
Table 4.2 Dimensions and properties of the “object”
As far as motivation is concerned, most publications name intrinsic motivation and
motivation by interest as the guiding motives for a PLE. This interest can be directed
towards a particular topic, towards becoming a competent person or using tools for
knowledge development. Other objectives include participation motivation directed
towards initiating and continuing an activity (e.g. initiating group communication,
continuing learning as lifelong learners), and also related to social support (e.g.
receiving feedback, guidance). It is often rather assumed or recommended that the
subject is or should be intrinsically motivated to reflect, interact and share with others
as well as develop the ability to mobilise a set of strategies and processes for selfdirected learning.
We could identify only one publication providing empirical evidence as to what
motivates learners to develop a PLE (Fournier & Kop, 2010), although a number of
publications emphasize the requirement of intrinsic motivation to use a PLE. They do
this however at the level of expectations, recommendations or normative
assumptions.
4.3
Tools
Tools mediate the activity of a subject and help the subject move towards the object
to achieve intended outcomes. Subjects employ tools to interact with objects in order
to achieve desired outcomes.
Figure 4.3 Relationships of “tools”
The following dimensions and properties of “tools” were coded in relation to PLE:
C. TOOLS
Dimensions
Properties
C.1
Customisation
C.1.1 Related to subject
● Customisation in line with personal preferences
● Adaptation to own needs and learning style
● Personalisation of services based on the personal profile
● Adapting look and feel to own aesthetic preferences
● Self-adapting interfaces for mobile devices
C.1.2 Related to object
● Getting information about content from different contexts
● Selecting sources of information for specific goals
● Developing and sharing reusable and customisable
Open Educational Resources (OER)
● Designing mash-up spaces
● Combining available functionalities and data to match
particular needs or be able to perform specific tasks
C.1.3 Related to community
● Tools allowing the sharing of information and knowledge
● Tools for accessing artefacts from different communities
C.1.4 Related to rules
● Mixing, re-purposing, re-using tools, content, resources
● Personalised aggregation of tools, materials and content
from a range of formal and informal places
● Aggregation of loosely coupled tools, including Web 2.0,
not provided by a single provider
● The environment has to be easy to install and to o
configure so as to adapt to user needs
● Choosing an open licence like Creative Commons (CC)
C.1.5 Customisation related to Division of Labour
● Self-archiving, self-publishing research results
● Public and private repositories of personal and
collaborative production
● Distributed, peer-to-peer learning environments
C.2
Facilitation
C.2.1 Related to subject
● Tools and channels for developing capacity to manage
own learning
● Tools supporting documentation and reflection of own
learning and practice
● Tools supporting development of digital literacy
● Tools for developing understanding, knowledge and
meaning
● Tools supporting inclusion and learning for all (e.g.
symbol-supported text and speech output, adjustable user
interfaces, adapting content and functions to the needs
and preferences of users)
C.2.2 Related to object
● Templates for scaffolding learning processes
● Tools for adaptable assessment
● Learning strategies
● Learning contracts
● Tools for structuring learning activities
● Tools for managing resources and content
● Tools for access to resources
● Tools facilitating cognitive presence
C.2.3 Related to community
● Tools supporting social networking and collaboration (e.g.
Web 2.0, mobile learning tools)
● Tools for creating social presence and community
awareness
● Tools for utilizing wisdom of crowds
● Service based environment for knowledge sharing
C.2.4 Related to rules
● Intelligent systems supporting learning, such as
recommender, expert systems, Artificial Intelligence,
semantic tools and applications (ontologies etc.)
● Service Oriented Architecture (SOA): Separation of
services and instruments as architectural feature
● Semantic mash-ups for a scalable and flexible mash-up
environment
● Personal learning tool-kits integrating a diversity of
different services
● Open APIs and integration of Web 2.0 tools within a VLE
● Syndication mechanisms, such as RSS, ATOM
C.2.5 Related to Division of Labour
● Ecology of resources and content
● Bazaar of learning content, open content, books, learning
materials, multimedia
● Interconnected technologies and applications enabling
proactive and personalised actions
● User-generated content
● Freely available resources
● Open Educational Resources
● Tools for aggregating networks and content from a range
of formal and informal places
● Tools to annotate and share resources
● Tools for providing applications and learning resources
based on context
Table 4.3 Dimensions and properties of “tools”
The publications on PLEs that we reviewed devote much attention to tools, both to
external, digital tools such as Web 2.0 or mobile learning tools as the current
underpinning of the PLE technology, but also to internal tools, such as learning
strategies, learning contracts and human or machine guidance. Whilst earlier studies
tended to view PLEs as a new technology, perhaps inherited from research in VLEs,
the later literature has focused on constructivism as an overarching approach to
learning through PLEs and has become more diversified and far richer in exploring
this dimension. Many publications address the issues of cognitive tools (such as
learning strategies) from the perspective of the skills required.
One strand of publications seems to place a stronger focus on “internal tools”,
advocating that PLE users design their learning environments through the application
of their skills in combining functionalities and data available on the Web. Another
strand focuses more on “external tools”, devising sophisticated technologies aimed at
providing guidance, feedback, creating presence, managing resources, adapting to
user preferences etc. Some publications combine both approaches.
Frequently addressed concepts related to tools include mash-ups based on
aggregation of tools and Service Oriented Architectures (SOA) as opposed to closed,
monolithic systems. Further aspects include intelligent systems, such as personalised
and contextualised recommendation services or expert systems based on semantic
technologies and/or artificial intelligence. The increasing development of Open
Educational Resources (OER) are seen as important, in not only providing rich and
accessible resources but also in assisting learners in developing their own critical
literacies through remixing and commenting on such resources.
4.4
Community
Community is a larger group with the subject as participant. Communities share the
same objects, are governed by rules and divide tasks among participants who belong
to a particular activity system.
Figure 4.4 Relationships of “community”
The following dimensions and properties of “community” were coded in relation to
PLE:
D. COMMUNITY
Dimensions
Properties
D.1
Social Support
D.1.1 Related to subject
● Communities providing resources and support for
learning
● Providing a personal hub for networked connections
● Learning in social contexts through Personal Learning
Networks (PLN)
D.1.2 Related to object
● Supporting the development of social networks for
learning
● Learning through participation and interaction within
Communities of Practice
● Teachers scaffold students’ PLNs for collaborative and
sustained learning
D.1.3 Related to tools
● Social networking technologies
● Technological space in which learners can situate their
technological practices within a broader conception of
their personal and social existence
D.1.4 Related to rules
● Legitimate peripheral participation
● Engagement and interchange with peers and other
learners
D.1.5 Related to Division of Labour
● Learning with and from others
● Supporting others in their learning
D.2
Boundary
crossing
D.2.1 Related to subject
● Individual participation in different, dispersed
Communities of Practice
● Learners participate in Communities of Practice, actively
creating and sharing activities, learning plans, resources
and experiences with peers and institutions
● Learners engage in activities within different milieus
which facilitates inclusion
D.2.1 Related to object
● Learning through interactions and practice in extended
communities according to personal interests
● Participation in Communities of Interest and Learning
Communities
● Collaboration in projects with people having different
prior knowledge
● Interaction between domains of learning and practices of
that learning
● Aggregating content from different communities
D.2.1 Related to tools
● Tools for collaborative shared activities and
development in shared workspaces
● Tools for extending beyond the domain of the course
● Boundary objects such as Open Educational Resources
● Technological space in which learners can situate their
technological practices within a broader conception of
their personal and social existence
D.2.1 Related to rules
● Boundary crossing between different learning domains,
discourses, processes, methodologies and structures
● Inter-relate learning from life with learning from school
● Inter-relate institutional learning and learning in the
wider world
● Enable access to learning in different contexts
D.2.1 Related to Division of Labour
● Getting information about learning opportunities from
different communities
● Collaboration between different actors and enterprises
● Blurring boundaries between different practices,
information, knowledge and technologies
● Blurring of boundaries between teachers and learners
Table 4.4 Dimensions and properties of “community”
4.4.1 Social support and boundary crossing
Learning is seen as taking place in wide contexts including the workplace and
distributed on and off line communities. The extended communities and the social
networks provide a much broader social context than has been envisaged in the
previous discourse related to technology-enhanced learning. The characteristic
features of communities within the PLE discourse seem to be providing social
support and enabling boundary crossing. The community with its networked
connections provides opportunities for collaborative and sustained learning.
Boundary crossing through engaging in activities across different communities and/or
having access to resources and content from various communities provides wider
opportunities for learning and integration of different contexts in which people learn.
4.4.2 Communities of Practice and Personal Learning Networks
In reference to social contexts in and through which learning takes place,
Communities of Practice (CoP) and Personal Learning Network (PLN) are most
frequently addressed concepts in the literature reviewed. While the CoP is inspired
by Lave and Wenger (1991), the PLN concept is often based on connectivism
(Siemens, 2005).
CoPs are often seen not as domain-specific communities but rather as linked,
dispersed and extended communities collaborating on common tasks. This
collaboration is based on artefacts carrying the knowledge and the culture of a
specific community and acting as boundary objects which can be used across
different communities. Learning can take place through bringing together knowledge
with practice and through critical reflection on that practice, facilitated by social
applications such as blogs, wikis and micro blogging tools. Involvement and active
engagement in such communities provides not only support but motivation for
learning through processes of inquiry and collaboration.
PLN, a relatively new concept, seems to be closely linked to the idea of
“Communities of Practice” to refer to dispersed and extended communities. Couros
(2010) defines PLN as “all social capital and connections that result in the
development and facilitation of a PLE”. The role of PLNs, through providing
authentic, dynamic and fluid social interactions, is seen in the collaborative
development of educational resources, participation in digital projects, the
development of personal portfolios, sharing and reviewing, and producing and
consuming through the shared development of learning networks. Some current
discussions around PLN and PLEs revolve around such issues as whether PLEs are
a subset of PLN or vice versa, or whether a PLN results in a PLE or vice versa
(Ivanova 2009; Couros, 2010).
4.5 Rules
Rules are norms, conventions and values and they represent a way of minimising
conflicts in an activity system.
Figure 4.5 Relationships of “rules”
The following dimensions and properties of “rules” were coded in relation to PLEs:
E. RULES
Dimensions
Properties
E.1
Openness
E.1.1 Related to subject
● Open to new challenges, ideas, perspectives
● Open and inclusive to others
● Open to a wide variety of different contexts for learning
including time and place
● Open to using different sources of information, contents
and materials
E.1.2 Related to object
● Combining different contexts for learning
● Fostering boundary crossing
● Facilitating wider social learning
E.1.3 Related to tools
● Technological permeability
● Integrating loosely coupled tools
● Tools for creating and sharing open education resources
● Use of open APIs for social networking
● Technologies which provide applications and learning
resources based on context
● Use of Open Source software
E.1.4 Related to community
● Communities open to all learners and other communities
E.1.5 Related to Division of Labour
● Open to new roles and tasks
E.2
Distribution
F.2.1 Related to subject
● Distribution of power in a social network
●
Distribution of knowledge
F.2.2 Related to object
● Distribution of learning resources
● Distribution of content
F.2.3 Related to tools
● Resources, content, materials, tools and networks are
distributed
● Services are decentralized in different faculties,
institutions, serves etc.
● Storage of personal data in the cloud (cloud computing,
could-based services)
● Federation infrastructure with widgets
● Tools connecting the learner with a wide range of
distributed users and services
● Aggregation of small services with simple interfaces that
cover single needs
● Tools to annotate and share learning resources
E.2.4 Related to community
● Distributing knowledge through different communities of
practice
● Shared workspaces
E 2.5 Related to Division of Labour
● Facilitating sharing of ideas, resources, content,
materials etc.
● Facilitating bottom-up development of ideas about
effective practice
● Facilitating collaboration between different enterprises,
institutions, communities etc
E.3
Connecting
E.3.1 Related to subject
● Active engagement, participation, collaboration
● Engagement and interchange with peers and other
learners
● Integrating academic and work-related learning contexts
● Linking different disciplines and domains
E.3.1 Related to object
● Complex, authentic tasks and problem-based learning
drawing on different contexts
E.3.1 Related to tools
● Tools to support collaboration on different learning tasks
● Tools for collaborative content production and
collaborative writing
● Tools to support aggregation of resources, content and
services
E.3.1 Related to community
● Developing Personal Learning Networks
● Participation in Communities of Practice
● Learners participate, actively creating and sharing
activities, learning plans, resources and experiences
with peers and institutions.
E.3.1 Related to Division of Labour
● Producing and sharing content through collaboration
● Connecting people and resources across domains,
institutions and contexts
Table 4.5 Dimensions and properties of “rules”
As far as rules are concerned we identified openness, distribution and connecting as
three central guiding principles of PLEs. These three principles are closely related to
the idea of E-learning 2.0 as described by Downes (2005) in his seminal paper. The
publications reviewed address openness, distribution and creating connections from
a psychological (e.g. openness to new ideas and different perspectives, distribution
of knowledge, connecting different areas of knowledge), sociological (e.g. openness
to all learners, distribution of power, connecting people from different milieus),
pedagogical (e.g. openness to changing roles, distribution of learning resources,
connecting learners, supporting development of PLNs) and technological (e.g. open
APIs, cloud-based services, aggregation tools) perspectives.
4.6 Division of labour
Division of Labour is related to the organisation of the activity system, linked to roles,
tasks and power relationships in an activity system.
Figure 4.6 Relationships of “division of labour” in the activity system
For division of labour we distinguished between the different roles of learners,
teachers, peers and institutions (including IT services). The following dimensions and
properties were coded in relation to PLEs:
F. DIVISION OF LABOUR
Dimensions
Properties
F.1
Learners
F.1.2 Roles of learners:
● Learners as agents of their own process of change
● Learners as designers of own learning environment
Responsibility, ownership and control of learning
● Ownership and responsibility for own data
● Leadership in the organisation
● Drawing on support from peer networks
● Developing and managing of own on-line identity
● Reflective learning through linking of learning to work
practices
● Participating in dispersed social networks and
communities
F.2.
Teachers
F. 2.1 Roles of teachers
● Teachers role changes to provide support, scaffolding
and guidance
● Support for developing capacity to manage own learning
● Encouragement and support for learners in critical
engagement and evaluation of resources and ideas
● Monitoring individual and group activities
● Supporting the development of social networks for
learning/personal learning networks (PLN)
● Facilitating wider social learning in various contexts
F.3
Peers
F.3.1 Roles of peers
● Providing support as “more knowledgeable others”
● Facilitating learning as micro-mentors
● Interaction and exchange with peer network
F.4
Institutions
F.4.1 Roles of institutions
● Providing access to expertise and to structured bodies
of knowledge
● Providing access to institutional services and resources
● Providing qualifications
● Not claiming monopoly on knowledge
● Connecting in- and off-campus, members and nonmembers of the learning community
Table 4.6 Dimensions and properties of “Division of Labour”
The Division of Labour in traditional learning environments is relatively simple
encompassing teachers, learners and school administrations. However not only is
this division changing through the use of Personal Learning Environments, but it is
also becoming more complex. As learning take place in wider contexts this brings
new actors into play. This can include peers, workplace managers, providers of Open
Education Resources and open online courses, technology developers. Furthermore,
the Division of Labour becomes more dynamic. Individuals may act as both teachers
and learners, depending on context, sometimes assuming both roles at the same
time.
Through the use of PLEs learners are seen as agents of their own process of change
and designers of their own learning environment. The key roles of learners include
taking ownership of own learning goals, processes and outcomes, taking
responsibility for their own data and managing their online identity, taking leadership
in learning settings and educational institutions and participating in social networks
and communities.
Teachers and trainers are seen as having a key role in scaffolding learning and
building on previous attainment and knowledge to accomplish new learning and
competence through involvement in engaging and doable tasks that are not a simple
answer to a question but involve problem solving, judgement, analysis, or synthesis
(Starr, 2000).
At the same time peer support is seen as increasingly important, through
engagement with those who Vygotsky (1978) called More Knowledgeable Others
(MKO). Peers as MKOs may have a better understanding or a higher competency
with respect to a particular task or concept. Engaging in social networking and the
development of a Personal Learning Network are seen as significant support for the
learning process supported by MKOs.
While “ownership” and “control” can be allocated to the concept “subject” they also
relate to the Division of Labour. There is perhaps less consensus of how aspects of
control over learning expressed through PLEs interact with institutional programmes.
Whilst some researchers see PLEs as broadening learning domains to include both
the institutional and wider social domains, others focus more on how institutional
resources might be ‘consumed’ within a PLE. The role of the institution is seen as
providing access to expertise, structured bodies of knowledge and services, without
claiming the monopoly on knowledge. Some authors advocate that educational
institutions tear down the walls of in- and off-campus communities in order to enable
university members and non-members to interact with each other and share
educational resources with tools of their choice. However, some commentators argue
that students wish to keep a sharp distinction between off-campus and on-campus
social networks and applications.
The role of the institution in PLEs has been especially debated under the headings of
“institutional PLEs” or “hybrid PLEs”. First, the issue of “ownership” is addressed from
a number of perspectives depending on whether “ownership” refers to the content as
such (i.e. materials, resources) or the container (i.e. platform, application, software).
The ownership of a PLE may be claimed by the individual or by the institution, or
some combination of both. In case of SAPO Campus project49 for example, the
initiative, supported by the university, takes advantage of an enterprise-owned
platform, through which learners create, distribute and share content. Since such
complex scenarios cannot be categorised using a simple dichotomy of “personal” and
“institutional”, the concept of the Hybrid Institutional-Personal Learning Environment
(HIPLE) has been introduced by Peña-López (2010).
Second, there is the issue of level of aggregation of institutional assets into PLEs. In
some cases, the institution provides a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), through
which materials are distributed and some learning processes take place. The
learners can then take these content sand materials and reuse them or manipulate
them through a selection of tools of their choice. In this case, there is no direct
49
http://campus.ua.sapo.pt/
connection between the institution-provided assets and the learners’ PLE. At the
other end of the spectrum, we have examples such as the SAPO Campus project
again, an initiative supported by the university, which takes advantage of an
enterprise-owned platform, through which learners create, distribute and share
content.
4.7 Context
Activity theory defines context as the activity itself and comprises all the elements of
the activity system: subject, object, tools, rules, community and division of labour.
Context is thus not an external container but it is rather constituted through the
enactment of an activity (Nardi, 1996). Context is not simply there but it is generated
in the activity system through transformations of relationships between the elements
in the triangle.
The idea of context is central to PLEs, both at pedagogical and technological levels.
Yet within the literature there is only limited exploration of the different dimensions of
context. Context often tends to be reduced to either the sector of education in which
students are engaged or the physical space in which learning takes place. Our
analysis shows that the most common contexts addressed in publications reviewed
are Higher Education (31%) and Lifelong Learning (15%), followed by enterprise,
organisations and workplace (9% each).
Some authors, however, view context from the perspective of a learning space,
involving examination of relations, context, actions and learning discourses mediated
by the socio-cultural milieu (Attwell & Hughes, 2010). Within the context, different
relationships can be distinguished, most notably between teachers and learners,
among learners themselves, between learners and the wider community and
between learners and technology (Attwell & Hughes, 2010). This conception bears
close links to Activity Theory. Since much learning may take place in the absence of
a formal teacher or trainer, it may be more appropriate to talk in Vygotskian terms of
a More Knowledgeable Others (MKO) in relation to teachers and peers. The wider
community includes formal education institutions, communities of practice or local or
extended personal learning networks.
The most obvious aspect of context is where the learning takes place. The PLE
literature acknowledges the fact that learning takes place in wider physical and online
communities as well as at home and in the workplace. This relates to the issue of
physical domains. Learning can take place in training workshops, through online
communities or through watching a television programme. A further aspect of context
within the PLE discourse is the wider social political, cultural and socio-cultural
environment. This in itself contains a raft of issues including factors such as the time
and cost of learning and rewards for learning.
Another critical issue is the nature of different learning discourses. The proponents of
PLN in particular point out that the learning discourse depends on social relations in
networks and communities. Learning discourses viewed in terms of processes,
methodologies and structures may be more or less structured and formalised and the
degree of interaction of learning processes with work or social processes may vary.
Learning discourses are also seen as taking place through the exploration of
boundary objects which serve as a point of mediation and negotiation and comprise a
space for shared work.
In general, context is seen as fluid and relational. It is the fluid and dynamic nature of
context which provides the central challenge to the design of a PLE, particularly in a
non-institutional setting.
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
In our view the Activity Theory model is a powerful descriptive and analytical tool for
understanding the interpretations and conceptualisations of PLEs. Using the AT
model enabled us to discover and define relationships between the central elements
in the activity theory triangle. The application of Grounded Theory for the discovery of
emergent concepts and their indicators allowed us to identify the core concepts
related to subject, object, tools, rules, community and division of labour. We visualise
the central dimensions in Figure 6.1.
Figure 6.1: Summary of PLE elements and their core dimensions
On the whole, we observed that the core concepts such as ownership, control,
literacy, autonomy or empowerment are often mentioned but seldom defined,
theoretically grounded or differentiated. This obscures the overall picture and
understanding of PLEs. Only in a few cases (e.g. Attwell, 2007a; Couros, 2010) is
there a reference to a theoretical background such as social constructivism or
andragogy.
We conclude by quoting Fournier & Kop (2010) that “research related to PLEs is only
in its infancy”. Our major recommendations for future research relate to a more indepth, both theoretical and empirical discovery of the core concepts related to the
elements constituting PLEs as activity systems identified in this review. Further
research should test whether the categories we identified are saturated and stable
enough to encompass new data or whether new categories are needed to reflect the
relevant aspects.
The open research questions include:

What types of ownership and control are relevant to PLEs?







What motivates and demotivates learners to establish own PLEs?
Which norms and values guide the development of PLEs in different contexts?
What roles are played by different actors in a PLE?
What is the relationship between ownership and collaboration in a PLE?
How do PLEs contribute to identity development?
How to balance power between different participants in a PLE?
How to support the development of literacies necessary to establish a PLE?
As far as Activity Theory is concerned, further studies should be undertaken to apply
and evaluate Activity Theory as a research framework for examining and designing
Personal Learning Environments.
Appendix
A list of all publications included in the review is available here:
http://plep.pbworks.com
References
Attwell, G. (2007a). Personal Learning Environments-the future of eLearning?
eLearning papers, 2(1), 1–7.
Attwell, G. (2007b). e-Portfolios – the DNA of the Personal Learning Environment?
Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 3/2.
Attwell G. & Hughes J. (2010). Pragmatics in Education, presentation to open online
course on Critical Literacies, Retrieved June 25, 2011 from
http://www.slideshare.net/GrahamAttwell/pragmatics-in-education,
Barthelmess, P., & Anderson, K. M. (2002). A View of Software Development
Environments Based on Activity Theory. Computer Supported Cooperative Work,
11(1), 13-37. Springer.
Chatti, M. A., Agustiawan, M. R., Jarke, M., & Specht, M. (2010a). Toward a Personal
Learning Environment Framework. International Journal of Virtual and Personal
Learning Environments, 1(4), 66-85.
Chatti, M. A., Jarke, M., & Specht, M. (2010b). The 3P Learning Model. Educational
Technology & Society, 13 (4), 74–85.
Collis, B., & Margaryan, A. (2004). Applying activity theory to computer-supported
collaborative learning and work-based activities in corporate settings. Educational
Technology Research & Development, 52(4), 38-52. Springer.
Couros, A. (2010). Developing Personal Learning Networks for Open & Social
Learning. In Veletsianos, G. (Ed). Emerging Technologies in Distance Education.
Edmonton: Athabasca University Press.
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.
Downes, S. (2005). E-learning 2.0. ACM eLearn Magazine.
Downes, S. (2010). New Technology Supporting Informal Learning. Journal of
Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence, 2(1), 27-33.
Engeström, Y. (1987) Learning by Expanding: An Activity Theoretical Approach to
Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y.
Engeström, R. Miettinen & R. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory
(pp.19-38). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström,Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work: toward an activity theoretical
reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 14, No. 1.
Fiedler, S. & Väljataga, T. (2010) Personal Learning Environments_ concept or
technology? PLE Conference Barcelona 6-8 July 2010.
Fournier, H. and Kop, R. (2010) Researching the design and development of a
Personal Learning Environment, PLE Conference Barcelona 6-8 July 2010.
Harmelen, M. van. (2006). Personal Learning Environments. Sixth IEEE International
Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT06) (pp. 815-816).
Harmelen, M. van (2008) Design trajectories: four experiments in PLE
implementation', Interactive Learning Environments,16:1,35 - 46
Holton, J. (2007) The coding process and its challenges. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz
(Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 237-262). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Ivanova, M. (2009). From personal learning environment building to professional
learning network forming. Paper presented at the 5th International Scientific
Conference E-learning and Software for Education.
JISC (2007). A report on the JISC CETIS PLE project. Retrieved February 28, 2010,
from http://wiki.cetis.ac.uk/Ple/Report.
Johnson, M., & Liber, O. (2008). The Personal Learning Environment and the human
condition: from theory to teaching practice. Interactive Learning Environments,
16(1), 3-15.
Johnson, M., Hollins, P., Wilson, S.. & Liber, O. (2007). Towards a Reference Model
for the Personal Learning Environment. Ascilite Conference, Sydney, Australia
2007
Jones, D. (2008) Proceedings of the Lifelong Learning Conference 2008, Central
Queensland University, Australia.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leontev A.N. (1978). Activity Consciousness and Personality. Retrieved June 2, 2010
from http://marxists.org/archive/leontev/works/1978/index.htm
Milligan, C., Johnson, M., Sharples, P., Wilson, S., & Liber, O. (2006). Developing a
reference model to describe the personal learning environment. In W. Nejdl & K.
Tochtermann (Eds.), Innovative Approaches for Learning and Knowledge Sharing
- First European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, ECTEL 2006
(pp. 506-511). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Nardi, B. A. (1996). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action
models, and distributed cognition. Context and consciousness Activity theory and
humancomputer interaction (pp. 69-102). MIT Press.
Peña-López, I. (2009). The personal research portal: web 2.0 driven individual
commitment with open access. In Hatzipanagos,S. & Warburton, S. (Eds.),
Handbook of Research on Social Software and Developing Community
Ontologies, Chapter 26, 400-414. Hershey: IGI Global.
Peña-López, I. (2010) Introducing the Hybrid Institutional-Personal Learning
Environment (HIPLE), In ICTlogy, #81, June 2010. Barcelona: ICTlogy. Retrieved
June 5, 2011 from http://ictlogy.net/review/?p=3389
Ravet, S. (2007). For an ePortfolio enabled architecture. Position Paper, V 1.1
Trish, A. & Du Toit , L. (2010) Utilising Activity theory and Illuminative Evaluation as a
Theoretical Framework for ACTS Learning Space.
Redmiles, D. (2002) CSCW computer supported cooperative work: Special issue on
activity theory and the practice of design (Vol. 11): Kluwer.
Scanlon, E., & Issroff, K. (2005). Activity Theory and Higher Education: evaluating
learning technologies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(6), 430-439.
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2005). Towards a Theory of Mobile Learning.
Proceedings of mLearn 2005, 1(1), 1-9. University of Birmingham.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International
Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 2(1).
Vygotsky L.(1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Wild, F., Mödritscher, F. & Sigurdarson, S. (2008) Designing for Change: Mash-Up
Personal Learning Environments. eLearning Papers, 9/July 2008.
Wild, F., Kalz, M. & Palmer, M. (eds.) (2008) Proceedings of the First International
Workshop on Mashup Personal Learning Environments (MUPPLE08), CEUR-WS
Proceedings.
Wilson, S., Liber, O., Johnson, M., Beauvoir, P., Sharples, P., & Milligan, C. (2007).
Personal Learning Environments: Challenging the dominant design of educational
systems. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 2(3).
Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2007). A conceptual framework based on Activity Theory
for mobile CSCL. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 211-235.
ingentaconnect.com.