This study focuses on the uses that two groups of higher education students make of technological resources offered by an institution to build their own personal learning environments. The main thesis is that these uses depend on the techno-pedagogical design of the teaching and learning process in which the technological resources are framed. In order to explore and illustrate this thesis two instructional sequences have been analysed. Both use the same technological design, the Elgg platform, which allows users to select and organize a set of resources or widgets according to their interests and needs. The results show that in both cases the uses that students make of technology are related to the characteristics and requirements of the particular techno-pedagogical designs. We conclude that the key is not to offer technological resources to the students so they can build their own personal learning environments, but to design activities that attract and induce them to build these personal environments and to guide and support the process of construction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdellJ.CastañedaL. (2010). Los Entornos Personales de Aprendizaje (PLEs): una nueva manera de entender el aprendizaje. In Roig VilaR.FiorucciM. (Eds.), Claves para la investigación en innovación y calidad educativas (pp. 19–30). Alcoy: Marfil – Roma TRE Universita degli studi. Retrieved from http://digitum.um.es/jspui/handle/10201/17247
CaberoJ.BarrosoJ.LlorenteM. C. (2010). El diseño de Entornos Personales de Aprendizaje y la formación de profesores en TIC. Digital Education Review, 18, Retrieved from http://greav.ub.edu/de
5.
CasqueroO.PortilloJ.OvelarR.BenitoM.RomoJ. (2010). iPLE Network: An integrated eLearning 2.0 architecture from a university’s perspective. Interactive Learning Environments, 18, 293–308. doi:10.1080/10494820.2010.500553
6.
CasqueroO.PortilloJ.OvelarR.RomoJ.BenitoM. (2011). Evaluating the affordances of an iPLE Network in an undergraduate level online course. Proceedings of the the PLE Conference 2011, 10–12July 2011, Southampton, UK. Retrieved from http://journal.webscience.org/view/events/The_PLE_Conference_2011/paper.html
7.
CastañedaL.SánchezM. M. (2009). Entornos e-learning para la enseñanza superior: entre lo institucional y lo personalizado. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 35, 175–191.
8.
CollC.BustosA.EngelA. (2011). Perfiles de participación y presencia docente distribuida en redes asíncronas de aprendizaje: la articulación del análisis estructural y de contenido. Revista de Educación, 354, 657–688.
9.
CollC.EngelA.BustosA. (2009). Distributed teaching presence and participants’ activity profiles: A theoretical approach to the structural analysis of Asynchronous Learning Networks. European Journal of Education, 44, 521–538. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3435.2009.01406.x
10.
CollC.MauriT.OnrubiaJ. (2008a). La incorporación de las TIC a la educación: del diseño tecno-pedagógico a las prácticas de uso. In CollC.MonereoC. (Eds.), Psicología de la educación virtual. Enseñar y aprender con las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación (pp. 74–103). Madrid: Morata.
DabbaghN.KitsantasA. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15, 3–8. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002
13.
DownesS. (2007). Learning networks in practice. Emerging Technologies for Learning, 2, 19–27.
14.
EngelA.CollC.BustosA. (2013). Distributed Teaching Presence and communicative patterns in asynchronous learning: Name versus reply networks. Computers & Education, 60, 184–196. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.06.011
15.
HäkkinenP.HämäläinenR. (2012). Shared and personal learning spaces: Challenges for pedagogical design. The Internet and Higher Education, 15, 231–236. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.09.001
16.
JohnsonM. W.SherlockD. (2014). Beyond the personal learning environment: Attachment and control in the classroom of the future. Interactive Learning Environments. doi:10.1080/10494820.2012.745434 vol 22, pp. 146–164.
17.
MarínV.SalinasJ.De BenitoB. (2012). Using SymbalooEDU as a PLE Organizer in Higher Education. Proceedings PLE Conference 2012Aveiro (Portugal) and Melbourne (Australia) from 11–13July 2012. Retrieved from http://revistas.ua.pt/index.php/ple/article/view/1427
18.
MartindaleT.DowdyM. (2010). Personal learning environments. In VeletsianosG. (Ed.), Emerging technologies in distance education (pp. 177–193). Edmonton: AU Press, Athabasca University.
19.
MartiniA.CinqueM. (2011). Social networking as a university teaching tool: what are the benefits of using Ning?Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 7, 67–77.
SaveryJ. R.DuffyT. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In WilsonB. G. (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135–148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
22.
ValtonenT.HacklinS.DillonP.VesisenahoM.KukkonenJ.HietanenA. (2012). Perspectives on personal learning environments held by vocational students. Computers & Education, 58, 732–739. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.025
23.
Van HarmelenM. (2008). Design trajectories: four experiments in PLE implementation. Interactive Learning Environments, 16, 35–46. doi:10.1080/10494820701772686
