Merging Learning Management Systems and Personal Learning
Environments
Miguel A. Conde, GRIAL Research Group – University of Salamanca, Spain,
mconde@usal.es
Francisco J. García, GRIAL Research Group – University of Salamanca, Spain,
fgarcia@usal.es
María J. Casany, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain,
mjcasany@lsi.upc.edu
Marc Alier, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain, marc.alier@upc.edu
Abstract
Learning processes are continuously evolving. The emergence of new technologies,
new social trends, new pedagogical activities, new learning context, new content
types, and so on; change the way in which we teach and learn. eLearning,
understood as the application of Information an Communication Technologies (ICT),
must be ready to integrate the new paradigms and consider the student as the
centre of the process. This shift will mean important changes on the tools currently
used, giving way to other tools that take into account the customization. These
changes are expensive and should not consist only of replacing all previously
existing but should seek to integrate new initiatives with those of success. The
integration must take into account existing tools such as Virtual Learning
Environments (VLE) and those new tools centred into the learner, Personal Learning
Environments (PLE). This will ensure that learning environments will be really
powerful and effective. In this paper integration initiatives will be review and a new
one will be proposed.
Keywords
Interoperability, VLE, PLE, Moodle, BLTI, Apache Wookie (incubating).
1. Introduction
eLearning landscape is currently changing (García Peñalvo 2005, 2008). It changes
due to the emergence of the social trends, 2.0 tools, new pedagogical tendencies,
mobile contexts, augmented reality technologies and so on. The evolving context
requires a change in the way learning is oriented, going to be focused on the
institution and the course, to be centred in the user. In order to enable this change it
will be necessary to consider those tools that support eLearning, the VLE.
Virtual Learning Environments also known as Learning Management Systems (LMS)
appear in mid 90's as a means of applying web technologies to improve learning. In
particular, these systems provide tools that will extend and support the traditional
concept of class, focusing primarily on helping teachers to facilitate the management
and administrative tasks related to learning (with document management tools,
facilitating the correction of test, providing space discussion, etc.). With the VLE
students find specific areas in which to carry out their academic activities or to
supplement the lectures.
Today, the VLE are fully seated in educational settings, something demonstrated by
the fact that 100% of Spanish universities have at least one VLE (Prendes 2009)
and in the field of business education can speak a 79.5% of large companies use
the VLE to train their employees (Wexler et al. 2008).
However, despite the acceptance they have, the VLE have not achieved the
expected improvements (Brown and Adler 2008; Cuban 2001). Due mainly to the
following reasons: 1) Learning, in order to improve student performance, should be
focused on the user and not the institution or the course (Attwell 2007). In this way
they could have an active role in the learning process not as a mere consumer of
content but as a participant (Harmelen 2006; Verpoorten et al. 2009). 2) It is
necessary that learning environments support lifelong learning (Attwell 2007; Weigel
2001). Thus, all training activities of the learner are reflected in the systems
facilitating their mobility and promoting constructivist learning without time restriction
to a specific period. 3) It is essential to consider the informal learning and how the
user can acquire new skills and knowledge from experience and interaction with
non-institutional and non-formal learning spaces. Tools 2.0 promote this model of
learning and should be supported in new contexts (Ajjan and Hartshorne 2008;
Casquero et al. 2010). 4) Learning systems must be able to evolve with new
technologies and not stagnate in institutionalized patterns of learning (Mott and
Wiley 2009).
In order to solve these problems appear Personal Learning Environments (PLE).
These learning spaces are able to satisfy all new necessities but have to consider
how to integrate the existing and “successful” experiences (such as VLE) and also
formal, informal and non-formal learning initiatives. In this article the integration
trends will be explored and a new approach is going to be presented. In the first
section the definition of Personal Learning Environment will be presented. The
second will expose the different learning integration tendencies. The following
section will describe a new integration approach and finally some conclusions will be
provided.
2. History and definition of PLE
PLE concept is something recent, but other concepts in which it is based like
personalization of learning, not so. The concept emerge around 2001 (Brown 2010)
although does not take force until November 2004 when the title appears as part of
the sessions of the JISC / CETIS Conference of that year.
From here there is a profuse contribution of different authors to what could become
the definition of PLE. The definition of PLE is not easy and there is still debate about
it, although they settled common ground. Among the possible definitions, there is a
differentiation between those who stress the importance of the technological concept
and those that consider the pedagogical benefits of it. In this paper only two of most
representative definitions will be included.
From a technological point of view there are several definitions but here only the
most representative are going to be considered. "The PLE is not a piece of software.
It is an environment where people, tools, communities and resources interact in a
flexible way "(Wilson et al. 2007). This author promotes an open environment to
services and resources from multiple contexts, opened, bidirectional (not only
consume services but are provided), customized to the user, that uses lightweight
standards and interfaces, collaborative and open content-oriented and that can be
seen from a personal perspective and from a community one.
From a pedagogical point of view several authors could be taken into account. One
of the most representative is Attwell, who believes that a PLE should not be seen as
a software application: "Personalized Learning Environment is not an application but
a new approach to the use of new technologies in learning. There are still many
unresolved elements. But in the end the discussion about the use of PLE is not
technical but philosophical, ethical and educational. The PLEs provide students their
own space to develop and share their ideas, through learning environments that
connect resources and contexts so far apart” (Attwell 2007).
For the both perspectives there exist different classifications of PLE, for example
depending on the way it is implemented (Sclater 2008), or the control of the learner
over the existing activities in the PLE (Al-Zoube 2009).
In order to provide a definition that tries to join the both technological and
pedagogical perspectives, the authors of the present paper propose the following
definition “A learning environment focused on the user and customizable, which will
combine all the tools, services, opinions, people, resources and activities that are
useful in the learning process. This environment should take into account the
different training modalities, facilitate lifelong learning and allow the integration of
new technologies. From a technological point of view PLE can be defined as an
integration framework that incorporates 2.0 technologies, supports interaction with
other learning contexts, facilitates interoperability with other existing systems (such
as learning content and resource repositories and VLE) and provides monitoring
systems for learner’s activity.
3. Integration tendencies
PLE can be seen as an opportunity to improve learning processes providing greater
effectiveness due to the fact that they are centred on the learner. However, in no
case it should be taken as a substitute for VLE (Adell and Castañeda 2010). VLE
are not dead and should not be discarded because of its success, widespread and
popularity (Sclater 2008).
Taking into account all these reasons VLE should be seen as useful learning tools,
which must be taken into account when defining PLE. Personal Learning
Environments are going to open institutional walled-gardens (Attwell 2007), that is to
say the VLE, so it is essential to establish solutions to integrate institutional and non
institutional worlds, that is to say formal, non formal and informal learning.
But this will not be an easy task because, among other things, to: 1) VLE difficulties
to include interoperability standards (Sclater 2008); 2) The integration of training
activities in the PLE is not adequate because they are designed for representation,
classification and tracking in other platforms (Palmér et al. 2009); 3) Problems of
traceability of user activity in the PLE and, therefore, also in the formal environment;
(Põldoja and Laanpere 2009) 4) single-sign-on implementation problems
(Severance, Hardin, and Whyte 2008); 5) Information security problems (Casquero
et al. 2010).
Given this situation Wilson and others proposed three possible scenarios of
integration (Wilson, Sharples, and Griffiths 2008):
1) PLE and VLE existence in parallel, as formal and informal environments
respectively. There exist several initiatives on this sense but are not going to
be taken into account because they are outside the scope of integration
problem.
2) The second scenario refers to the opening of the VLE through the inclusion of
Web services and interoperability initiatives. In this scenario may be included:
iGoogle based initiatives (Casquero et al. 2008), social networks connected
with VLE (Torres, Edirisingha, and Mobbs 2008), the VLE that offer support
for implementations of interoperability specifications (IMS 2011), PLEs with
specific communication protocols (Harmelen 2006) or integration based on
service-oriented architectures - SOA (Peret, Leroy, and Leprêtre 2010). Main
difficulties of these initiatives are: the institutional barriers to the opening of
formal environments and the fact that those initiatives are focused on
information exportation and not interaction exchange. That is to say,
communication is oriented in one direction, from the VLE towards the external
tools; basically exchanging information about what happens on the platform
and providing no information or interaction back to the VLE.
3) The third scenario is based on the integration of external tools into the VLE.
In these initiatives user might not decide which tools she is going to use and
they will be limited to institutional decisions. Some initiatives in this scenario
are: VLE defined for the integration of external tools (Booth and Clark 2009),
Google Wave Gadgets integrated into Moodle (Wilson et al. 2009), PLE
introducing tools based on log analysis (Verpoorten et al. 2009), initiatives
based on tools integration driven by learning design activities (de-la-FuenteValentín et al. 2008), integration architectures (Alario-Hoyos and Wilson
2010), etc. These initiatives have several problems such as: integration
problems between tools, context integration difficulties, stiffness for
customization by the student and so on. Those that best overcome these
problems are the ones that define a learning platform starting from scratch or
from a previous institutional development. This will greatly limit the scope of
use of the solution that will be applied to very specific context.
Taking all these solutions into account, with their problems and how they are faced a
conclusion can be obtained, the integration between VLE and PLE is still far to be
achieved. The use of web services and interoperability specifications facilitates
opening VLE, but with the exception of certain initiatives (Alier et al. 2009; Alier,
Casañ, and Piguillem 2010; Conde, Muñoz, and García 2008; Conde, Muñoz, and
García 2008) there are no systems that allow the user personalization, including
tools from the VLE and where any user interaction was recorded in the institutional
environment. This will be the goal of the following proposal.
4. Integration framework approach
With the emergence of Personalized Learning Environments that focus on users and
its coexistence with traditional institutional learning environments, it is necessary to
define approaches that allow the integration of both environments in order to
facilitate user learning and ensure its reflection in the institutional environment.
Exploring the above commented initiatives it is clear that closest approach to a valid
solution is based on sceneries two and three. That is to say the application of
service oriented architectures and the support of interoperability specifications.
Applying SOA to VLE will allow isolating external applications from the underlying
technology. That is why is so important including SOA in VLE official releases,
because the developer can be sure that the software they performed will be
independent from the platform, opening a new door to learning functionalities and
allowing the exchange of information and interaction between external tools and
VLE. Many platforms already incorporate service-oriented architectures such as
Moodle (Conde, García, Casany, and Alier 2010), Blackboard (Severance, Hardin,
and Whyte 2008; Godwin-Jones 2009), Sakai (Dagger et al. 2007) and so on. These
architectures facilitate the aperture of the VLE in different ways such as: access
through mobile devices, connection with back office tools, semantic VLE information
search, and so on (Conde, García, Casany, and Allier 2010; Fontenla, Caeiro, and
Llamas 2009).
Also there exist several PLE initiatives that are based on SOA approaches or use
web services, such as: MUPPLE (Wild, Mödritscher, and Sigurdarson 2009),
PLEF(Chatti, Jarke, and Specht 2009), MeMeTeKa (Casquero et al. 2010), Peret,
Leroy y Leprêtre(Peret, Leroy, and Leprêtre 2010) work and so on.
However, although web services open the VLE, they do not provide a standard
solution, the adaptation of a tool for the communication with a specific VLE by using
a set of web services, will not be valid for other VLE. In order to provide a real
integration approach, interoperability specifications must be taken into account.
Some of the most representative will be IMS TI, IMS LTI, SAML, Power Links, OKI
and so on (Severance, Hardin, and Whyte 2008). One of the most popular
specifications will be IMS LTI (also known as Full LTI) because it will facilitate a real
and full integration between tools and learning platforms. However, many VLE or
tools do not support it due to its difficult implantation. In order to overcome this, a
light version of the specification was released, Basic LTI (BLTI). This version,
implemented by the most representative VLE (IMS 2011), will allow the creation of
an external tool instance inside the learning platform, launching it and providing a
Single Sign on access. BLTI presents a problem; there is no a real integration only
authentication, so there is no exchange of information about the activity performed
on the tool towards the VLE (i.e.: the grade of an activity, the users’ activity logs and
so on). BLTI is working in some extensions such as BLTI outcomes, but it only
provides a way to return to the VLE a grade about the activity performed in the
external context.
Once described the context of the problem, an integration proposal is going to be
posed. This proposal consists of a service-based framework for integrating different
learning tools and contexts in a personalized way. The present proposal is based on
existing software and does not require expensive developments. It will have three
main parts (Figure 1):
 The institutional context (on the left side of Figure 1). This part is represented
by a VLE, in this case Moodle 2.0 which incorporates and scalable web
service layer that allows the exportation of information from the VLE (Conde,
Gómez, et al. 2010). The service layer provides access to Moodle core
without the necessity of hacking the platform. The institutional context needs
to have knowledge about the learning activity performed outside it.
 The informal and personalized context (on the right side of Figure 1). This
part provides different tools to users in order to carry out different learning
activities. It has to include also activities from the VLE so the learner can be
able to mix them with other tools they use for learning.

The set of tools. External tools that are used for learning and are going to be
integrated into the PLE. The adaptation of those tools will be necessary in
order to monitor the activity learner performs in such kind of contexts.
Figure 1. Integration proposal. This image describes the different elements of the
proposal, the institutional context, the informal and personalized one and the
adapted tools that connect to the VLE by using BLTI
These three parts must be integrated in order to provide a proper solution for
successful integration between formal and informal environments. The institutional
part must provide information and interaction to the PLE, in such a way that the
learner could include in their PLE functionalities from the VLE. To do this the web
service layer is used but also a representation in the PLE is needed. Moreover the
PLE is going to include existing external tools so they must be adapted to the
representation in that environment. For both problems widgets are a possible
solution. The present approach will use Apache Wookie (incubating), a initiative
derived from the TENCompetence European Union project. It deals with open
source engines to generate widgets. Wookie is based on the W3C Widgets
specification, but also can be included widgets that use extended APIs such as
Google Wave Gadgets and OpenSocial. The reasons for use Wookie will be they
are compliant with W3C specification and there exist previous experiences in PLE
(Wilson, Sharples, and Griffiths 2008). Wookie widgets will represent funcionalities
from the VLE and from external tool, allowing the user to define their own
environment.
The present proposal does not try to incorporate external tools in the VLE such
some others (see third scenario in Wilson classification in the above section), it
pretends to integrate functionalities from the VLE in the PLE with other tools that
learners use to learn and monitor users’ activity in both of them. This is going to be
done in three ways:
 The user performs some activity from the VLE through a widget in her own
PLE (figure 1 in purple). In this case the proposal will use web services to
exchange information and interaction, what a user does in the widget is also
present in the learning platform so is measurable.
 The users perform an activity by using an external tool included in the PLE
(Flickr or Wordpress in Figure 1). For example, there exist a widget that
allows user to share and introduce photos in a Flickr account related to some
issues of a VLE subject. In order to measure user activity, a new module will
be included in the learning platform. This module allows teacher to instantiate
a new activity (i.e.: Flickr activity), to access to the external tool (for example
access to a Flickr account) and evaluate the work performed. In this case
there will be no integration, because teacher needs to access to external
context in order to check the learner work, however the external activity will be
taken into account during subject evaluation.
 The users perform an activity by using an external tool and IMS Basic LTI will
be used to integrate that tool (adapted tools in blue in Figure 1). BLTI
provides a way to launch the external application inside the VLE without
requiring a login (single-sign on techniques) and allows learner to use the tool
in the VLE although no integration of activity logs or grades is included in it.
BLTI will solve this by facilitating the return of user’s grades obtained in the
external activity. In this way a “bidirectional” and full integration of external
tools would be achieved, but the activity must be performed in the VLE (a
frame with the application will be launched). The learner needs to be
authenticated in the VLE to perform the activity and they cannot access to it
through the PLE without a previous institutional access, this does not fit with
the framework aim (Figure 2 left side).
In order to solve this problem, a widget that represents the activity in the PLE
will be developed. Also, an adaptation task in the external tool is necessary to
return the user’s activity evaluation and to implement the BLTI specification.
The activity must be instantiated in the learning platform, but instead of
represent it there, this instance launches in the VLE view only accessible to
teachers that allows recovering the grades of all students in such tool (Figure
2 right side). That is to say, the student may use the widget (in the PLE) to
perform the activity and the teacher can obtain the grades by using the VLE.
Taking into account all these possibilities of integration, a real fusion of informal and
formal learning environments will be possible.
Figure 2. BLTI approach Vs. Integration approach. On the left side Scridb integration
launched inside the VLE. On the right side Scribdb integrated in the PLE and
accessed by the learner from it.
5. Conclusions
eLearning is continuously evolving and now learner is centre of learning process.
Furthermore the Bologna process is committed to learner work outside the
institution, personalized learning, and continuous assessment. Besides, it is
beginning to take into account all the activity performed in informal contexts. In this
situation Personal Learning Environments are especially relevant, but traditional VLE
must not disappear. Both contexts should be integrated in order to provide a more
complete solution.
On this paper a new integration proposal is described, this proposal tries to solve the
problems of integration between learning platforms and personalized environments.
The approach consists of a service-based framework, which uses Wookie widgets,
web services and interoperability specifications to achieve a real integration between
informal learning tools and contexts and formal environments.
However this proposal is limited regarding to interoperability because of the features
of BLTI. This specification was defined with the aim of facilitate integration with tools
and launch and authentication actions. In order to solve this, some of the future work
may consist on the extension of BLTI specification to include activity logs, feedback,
new kind of grades and so on.
Other possible future work will consist of the opening of the defined PLE to mobile
devices contexts, in order to facilitate learner access to a personalized context by
using her own mobile device.
6. Acknowledgements
We want to thank members of the Group of Research in Interaction and eLearning
of the University of Salamanca for their collaboration in the form of critical feedback
in the development of this article. This work is partially supported by the Ministry of
Industry, Tourism and Trade of Spain (project IST-020302-2009-35), the Ministry of
Education and Science of Spain (project TIN2010-21 695-C02) and the Department
of Education of Junta de Castilla y León through the project GR47.
8.
References
Adell, Jordi., and Linda. Castañeda. 2010. Los Entornos Personales de Aprendizaje
(PLEs): una nueva manera de entender el aprendizaje. In Claves para la
investigación en innovación y calidad educativas. La integración de las
Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación y la Interculturalidad en las
aulas. Alcoy: Marfil – Roma TRE Universita degli studi.
Ajjan, H., and R. Hartshorne. 2008. Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0
technologies: Theory and Empirical Tests. The Internet and Higher Education
11 (2):71-80.
Al-Zoube, Mohammed. 2009. E-Learning on the Cloud. International Arab Journal of
e-Technology 1 (2):58-64.
Alario-Hoyos, Carlos, and Scott Wilson. 2010. Comparison of the main Alternatives
to the Integration of External Tools in different Platforms. In International
Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, ICERI 2010. Madrid,
Spain, November 2010.
Alier, Marc., Maía José Casany, Miguel Angel Conde, Francisco José García, and
Severance Charles. 2009. Interoperability for LMS: the Missing Piece to
Become the Common Place for Elearning Innovation. In Second World
Summit on the Knowledge Society, WSKS. Chania, Crete, Greece.
Alier, Marc., María José. Casañ, and Jordi. Piguillem. 2010. Shifting from a Learning
Toolkit to a Open Learning Platform. In Technology Enhanced Learning:
Quality of Teaching and Educational Reform. 1st International Conference,
TECH-EDUCATION 2010. Athens, Greece.: Communications in Computer
and Information Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Attwell, G. 2007. The Personal Learning Environments - the future of eLearning? In
eLearning Papers.
Attwell, Graham. 2007. e-Portfolios – the DNA of the Personal Learning
Environment? Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society 3 (2).
Booth, Andrew G., and Brian P. Clark. 2009. A service-oriented virtual learning
environment. On the Horizon. 17 (3):232-244.
Brown, J. S. 2010. From VLEs to learning webs: the implications of Web 2.0 for
learning and teaching. Vol. 18: Routledge.
Brown, J. S., and R. P. Adler. 2008. Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail,
and Learning 2.0. Educause Quarterly 42 (6):16-32.
Casquero, Oskar, Javier Portillo, Ramón Ovelar, Manuel Benito, and Jesús Romo.
2010. iPLE Network: an integrated eLearning 2.0 architecture from
University's perspective. Interactive Learning Environments 18 (3):293-308.
Casquero, Oskar, Javier Portillo, Ramón Ovelar, Jesús Romo, and Manuel Benito.
2008. iGoogle and gadgets as a platform for integrating institutional and
external services. In Mash-Up Personal Learning Environments - 1st
Workshop MUPPLE’08. Maastricht, The Netherlands: CEUR-Workshop
Proceedings.
Chatti, M. A., M. Jarke, and M. Specht. 2009. PLEF: A Conceptual Framework for
Mashup Personal Learning Environments. Learning Technology Newsletter
11 (3).
Conde, M. Á., F. J. García, Mª J. Casany, and M. Alier. 2010. Applying Web
Services to define Open Learning Environments. In Twenty-First International
Workshops on Database and Expert Systems Applications – DEXA 2010.
Third International Workshop on Social and Personal Computing for WebSupported Learning Communities – SPeL 2010. Bilbao, Spain, 30 August - 3
September 2010: IEEE Computer Society.
Conde, Miguel Ángel, Francisco José García, María José. Casany, and Marc. Allier.
2010. Open Integrated Personal Learning Environment: Towards a New
Conception of the ICT-Based Learning Processess. In Knowledge
Management, Information Systems, E-Learning, and Sustainability Research.
Third World Summit on the Knowledge Society, WSKS 2010. Corfú, Greece,
September 22-24: Communications in Computer and Information Science.
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Conde, Miguel Ángel, Diego Alonso Gómez, Alberto Pozo, and Francisco José
García. 2010. Moodle 2.0 Web Services Layer and Its New Application
Contexts. In Technology Enhanced Learning: Quality of Teaching and
Educational Reform. 1st International Conference, TECH-EDUCATION 2010.
Athens, Greece.: Communications in Computer and Information Science.
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Conde, Miguel Ángel, Carlos Muñoz, and Francisco José García. 2008. mLearning,
the First Step in the Learning Process Revolution. Internacional Journal of
Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) 2 (4):61-63.
Conde, Miguel Ángel, Carlos Muñoz, and Francisco José García. 2008. Sistemas
de Adaptación de contenidos para dispositivos móviles. In Actas del congreso
de IX Congreso Internacional de Interacción Persona - Ordenador. Albacete.
Cuban, L. 2001. Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Dagger, D., A. O'Connor, S. Lawless, E. Walsh, and V.P. Wade. 2007. ServiceOriented E-Learning Platforms: From Monolithic Systems to Flexible Services.
Internet Computing, IEEE 11 (3):28-35.
de-la-Fuente-Valentín, Luis, Derick Leony, Abelardo Pardo, and "Mashups in
Learning Design: pushing the flexibility envelope" Carlos Delgado Kloos,
Proceedings of the , Maastricht, The Netherlands, September 17, 2008. 2008.
Mashups in Learning Design: pushing the flexibility envelope. In First
International Workshop on Mashup Personal Learning Environments
(MUPPLE08). Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Fontenla, Jorge, Manuel Caeiro, and Martín Llamas. 2009. Una Arquitectura SOA
para sistemas de e-Learning a través de la integración de Web Services. In
Congreso Iberoamericano de Telemática. CITA 2009.
García Peñalvo, Francisco José. 2005. Estado Actual de los Sistemas E-Learning.
Teoría de la Educación. Educación y Cultura en la Sociedad de la
Información 6 (2).
García Peñalvo, Francisco José. 2008. Preface of Advances in E-Learning:
Experiences and Methodologies. Hershey, PA, USA: Information Science
Reference.
Godwin-Jones, Robert. 2009. Emerging technologies personal learning
environments. Language, Learning & Technology 13 (2):3-9.
Harmelen, Mark van. 2006. Personal Learning Environments. In Proceedings of the
Sixth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies:
IEEE Computer Society.
IMS. 2011. Common Cartridge and Basic Learning Tools Interoperability Progress
and Conformance Status 2011 [cited 14/01/2011 2011]. Available from
http://www.imsglobal.org/cc/statuschart.html.
Mott, Jon, and David Wiley. 2009. Open for Learning: The CMS and the Open
Learning Network. In Education - Exploring our connective educational
landscape 15 (2).
Palmér, Matthias, Stéphane Sire, Evgeny Bogdanov, Denis Gillet, and Fridolin Wild.
2009. Mapping Web Personal Learning Environments. In Second
International Workshop on Mashup Personal Learning Environments
(MUPPLE09). Nize, France: CEUR-WS.org.
Peret, Yvan, Sabine Leroy, and Eric Leprêtre. 2010. First steps in the integration of
institutional and personal learning environments. In Workshop Future
Learning Landscape - EC-TEL 2010. Barcelona, Spain.
Põldoja, Hans, and Mart Laanpere. 2009. Conceptual Design of EduFeedr — an
Educationally Enhanced Mash-up Tool for Agora Courses. In Mash-Up
Personal Learning Environments - 2st Workshop MUPPLE’09. Nize France:
CEUR Proceedings.
Prendes, M. P. 2009. Plataformas de campus virtuales de Software Libre: Análisis
compartivo de la situación actual de las Universidades Españoles.: Informe
del proyecto EA-2008-0257 de la Secretaría de Estado de Universidades e
Investigación.
Sclater, Niall. 2008. Web 2.0, Personal Learning Environments, and the Future of
Learning Management Systems. In Research Bulletin. Boulder, CO:
EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR).
Severance, Charles, Joseph Hardin, and Anthony Whyte. 2008. The coming
functionality mash-up in Personal Learning Environments. Interactive
Learning Environments 16 (1):47-62.
Torres, Ricardo, Palitha Edirisingha, and Richard Mobbs. 2008. Building Web 2.0Based Personal Learning Environments: A Conceptual Framework. In EDEN
Research Workshop 2008.
Verpoorten, Dominique, Christian Glahn, Milos Kravcik, Stefaan Ternier, and Marcus
Specht. 2009. Personalisation of Learning in Virtual Learning Environments.
In Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Technology Enhanced
Learning: Learning in the Synergy of Multiple Disciplines. Nice, France:
Springer-Verlag.
Weigel, Van B. 2001. Deep Learning for a Digital Age: Technology's Untapped
Potential to Enrich Higher Education. 192 vols: Jossey-Bass.
Wexler, Steve, Lance Dublin, Nancy Grey, Sheila Jagannathan, Tony Karrer,
Margaret Martinez, Bob Mosher, Kevin Oakes, and Angela van Barneveld.
2008. LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. The good, the bad, the ugly,...
and the truth. In Guild Research 360 Degree Report: The eLearning Guild.
Wild, Fridolin, Felix Mödritscher, and Steinn Sigurdarson. 2009. Mash-Up Personal
Learning Environments. iCamp.
Wilson, S., O. Liber, M. Johnson, P. Beauvoir, P. Sharples, and C. Milligan. 2007.
Personal Learning Environments: Challenging the dominant design of
educational systems Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society 3 (3):2738.
Wilson, Scott, Paul Sharples, and Dai Griffiths. 2008. Distributing education services
to personal and institutional systems using Widgets. In Mash-Up Personal
Learning Environments - 1st Workshop MUPPLE’08. Maastricht, The
Netherlands,: CEUR Proceedings.
Wilson, Scott, Paul Sharples, Dai Griffiths, and Kris Popat. 2009. Moodle Wave:
Reinventing the VLE using Widget technologies. In Mash-Up Personal
Learning Environments - 2st Workshop MUPPLE’09. Nize France: CEUR
Proceedings.