Content uploaded by Sandra Schön
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sandra Schön on Jan 29, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
On the way towards Personal Learning Environments:
Seven crucial aspects
Sandra Schaffert & Wolf Hilzensauer
Salzburg Research
Summary
The practice of learning and teaching is not pre-determined, but always related to the tools and
systems used in the process. The development and rising success of social software applications
such as weblogs and wikis and so-called Personal Learning Environments (PLE) changes, enables
and challenges learning with the Internet. PLE, especially in contrast to traditional Learning
Management Systems (LMS), received significant attention and are about changing the paradigm of
learning and teaching. This paper tries to underpin a better understanding of the underlying concepts
of both approaches and, on the other hand, to emphasise the consequences and challenges of PLE
and its rising usage for learning.
We have identified seven aspects where these changes are most obvious and/or important. To sum
up, learning with PLE leads to changes concerning: (1) the role of the learner as active, self-directed
creators of content; (2) personalisation with the support and data of community members; (3) learning
content as an infinite “bazaar”; (4) the big role of social involvement; (5) the ownership of learner's
data; (6) the meaning of self-organised learning for the culture of educational institutions and
organisations, and (7) technological aspects of using social software tools and aggregation of multiple
sources.
The vast number of tools, supporting collaboration on the web is an indicator that PLE and social
software tools are not only a flash in the pan, but lead to a new notion of learning and a measure for
sustainable competence development. Nevertheless, the existing approaches and ideas for PLE
need further development and elaboration. With the discussion of the related shifts from LMS towards
PLE and their challenges, this paper may serve as the basis for learners, teachers and educational
institutions decisions for (or against) the technological concept of PLE, on a general level and taking
into account its pedagogical implications.
Keywords
Virtual Learning System, Learning Management System, Personal Learning Environment, Social
Software, PLE, LMS
Introduction: Different technological concepts for learning environments
The rapid technological progress influences the methods and possibilities of learning and teaching.
With any new media technology, there has been contemporaneously a tendency to imitate existing
educational paradigms (Geser 2007, 37). Besides the development of computer based trainings
(CBT) and Web based trainings (WBT), which were the first attempts to support learning with
computer and new media, the development of learning management systems (LMS) tried to simulate
classroom learning with ICT. A LMS supports the management of learning content and learning
activities, but with a focus on the traditional roles in a learning environment (teacher/learner).
In contrast to LMS, the Personal Learning Environments (PLE) are based on the idea of a user-
centred learning approach, using Social Software tools. Social Software can be defined as software
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu • 1
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu • 2
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
that connects people and ensures collaboration and communication. The term Social Software can
be used for describing a wide range of software applications, but it usually refers to some of the most
recent developments in Web-based applications like Wikis, Weblogs, instant messaging (e.g. AIM1,
ICQ2), Social Bookmarking (e.g. del.icio.us3), media sharing (e.g. Flickr4, YouTube5), social
networking systems (e.g. MySpace6, Facebook7, LinkedIn8) (see Schaffert 2007) or so-called
“location-aware services” (Plazes9, Twitter10, Jaiku11 )12.
With the new possibilities of social interaction, the importance of content seems to decline to some
extent. As a vast amount of content is already (out) there (in the internet), social interaction
apparently becomes more important. The enormous amount of content that is currently available with
applications such as the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia13, social networking sites, or the Weblog
index Technorati14 with its more than 112 million indexed blogs serves as testimony. Social Software
provides the flexibility that is needed particularly in informal and collaborative learning settings, where
people with different prior knowledge, learning interests and learning activities learn collaboratively
with or from others. This is the most important part of our daily learning activities. As a consequence,
it is necessary to bring together pedagogical know-how and expertise about learning processes,
taking today's established learning culture into account.
Based on the development of Social Software applications and the shift from the consumers to
prosumers, the term and concept of “personal learning environments” (PLE) was introduced.
According to Wikipedia, the term was first mentioned on a session at a JISC/CETIS conference in the
year 2004 and a “virtual learning environment” vision of Scott Wilson can be seen as a first attempt to
describe this new concept of a personal learning system interacting with Social Software applications
and institutional services (cf. Wikipedia 2008).
Some authors see the PLE as the sum of all used tools (e-mail, browser, websites and applications)
but according to a majority it is a technological realisation where Social Software applications and
Web services are combined, e.g. as mash-up in a single portal for the purpose of learning. PLE are
Web sites or services were learners are able to produce learning content or reflections and store
documentations about their learning processes (e.g. Weblog postings). Furthermore, users should be
able to aggregate data from their learning communities, e.g. through RSS feeds of interesting
Weblogs. Examples for PLE applications are Netvibes15 or WordPressMU16 (a multi user Weblog),
but also I-Google17 or Flock18 could serve as a PLE.
But even if these tools are handled or named as PLE, they are currently not able to connect and
include interfaces to LMS or build on typically learning support as giving (automatic)
recommendations for further learning steps according to prior knowledge and interests. Presently,
1 http://www.aim.com/
2 http://www.icq.com/
3 http://del.icio.us/
4 http://www.flickr.com/
5 http://youtube.com/
6 http://www.myspace.com/
7 http://www.facebook.com/
8 http://www.linkedin.com/
9 http://plazes.com/
10 http://twitter.com/
11 http://www.jaiku.com/
12 In recent times, social software is put on a par with Web 2.0. We would like to point out, that according to Koch and
Richter (2007) the term “social software” relies on the human interaction (identity management, relationship management
and information management) of the user, whereas Web 2.0 is related to the notion of users becoming active participants in
the web. In other words, according to them, social software can be seen as a sub-class of Web 2.0, but it is not equal.
13 http://www.wikipedia.org/
14 http://www.technorati.com/
15 http://www.netvibes.com/
16 http://mu.wordpress.org/
17 http://www.google.com/ig
18 http://flock.com/
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu • 3
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
PLE is more a concept or vision, even if several projects deals with the development, for example the
projects TENCompetence19 or MATURE20 , both co-financed by the European Commission.
An Overview about seven crucial aspects for learning on the way from LMS towards PLE
Teachers and educational institutions have a special interest in supporting and fostering learning
processes and activities of their learners. Especially if the institutions offer virtual learning phases to
their students, the selection of tools and systems is an important factor. This decision may limit the
learning and teaching processes, for example by the limited possibilities of interaction amongst the
participants or by lacking of opportunities for learners to create their own content.
The decision to favour PLE for the actual learning processes while using LMS for purely
administrative processes leads and influences (obviously) new learning and teaching settings.
Terry Anderson (2006) tries to point out the differences (and advantages) of PLE vs. LMS. He
identifies six advantages, which are listed as: identity (learners have existence beyond formal
school), ease of use (customisation by the user him/herself), control and responsibility of ownership
(content belongs to the user), copyright and reuse (the owner and not the institution has to make
these decisions), social presence (support of communication and “online culture”) and capacity of
speed and innovation (new applications evolve rapidly and new features invade the PLE
conglomerate in the learning setting).
There are several others presentations, statements or discussion to be found in the Web or on
conferences. The following table provides an overview about seven crucial aspects of the shift from
LMS to PLE that we identified as important changes and challenges. The chosen aspects and
arguments build on our review of publications, presentations and discussions which are ongoing and
the crucial aspects the experts are discussing (e.g. Attwell 2007) and own investigations in the field of
web-based innovations for learning (e.g. Schaffert, Bürger, Hilzensauer & Schaffert 2008.
Therefore we distinguish between technological concepts as LMS or PLE and learning or teaching
concepts and methods. From our point of view LMS and PLE are both technological concepts that
both allow several pedagogical methods or personal learning strategies. But as we will illustrate, the
technological concepts limit or guide the concrete learning setting. So, this contribution can serve as
basis for decision of learners, teachers or educational institutions for (or against) the technological
concept PLE on a general, conceptual level and its pedagogical implications.
LMS PLE challenges & shifts
1 role of learner learner as consumer of
pre-defined learning
materials, dependent on
the “creativity” of the
teacher
active, self-directed,
creator of content
shift from consumer to
“prosumer”, self
organisation is possible
AND necessary
2 personalisation ... is an arrangement of
learning assignments and
materials according to a
(proposed or pre-defined)
learner's model, based on
an underlying expert
system
... means to get
information about learning
opportunities and content
from community members
and learning services
fitting to the learner's
interests (via tags/RSS)
competence for usage of
several tools and a self
organisation is needed
3 content developed by domain
experts, special authors,
tutors and/or teachers
the infinite “bazaar” of
learning content in the
Web, exploring learning
opportunities and services
necessary competences
to search, find and use
appropriate sources (e.g.
Weblogs)
4 social involvement limited use of group work, the community and the communit
y
and
19 http://www.tencompetence.org/
20 http://mature-ip.eu/
focus on the closed
learner group (e.g. in the
LMS), collaboration and
exchange not primarily in
the focus
social involvement (even
in multiple communities) is
the key for the learning
process and the
recommendations for
learning opportunities
collaboration as the
central learning
opportunities
5 ownership content is generally
owned by the educational
institutions or the
students, due to
technological reasons, this
ownership can not always
be realised
content is organised in
multiple, Web-based tools,
ownership is controlled by
the learners themselves
and/or (commercial)
service providers
awareness of personal
data is needed
6 educational &
organisational
culture
imitation of classroom
learning, course-
orientated, teacher-
orientated features
self-organised learner in
the focus
change of learning culture
and perspective – move
towards self organisation
and self determination
7 technological
aspects
classical learning content
needs interoperability
between LMS and data
repositories
Social Software tools and
aggregation of multiple
sources
required interoperability
between LMS and the
Social Software
Table 1: An overview about seven crucial aspects of the shift from LMS to PLE
Within the following deliberations we would like to illustrate the possible changes and impacts
concerning the learning setting.
1) The learner as “prosumer”
As mentioned in the introduction, the possibilities for self-direction and self-organisation of different
learning activities within LMS are limited by the (pre-defined) educational settings of the virtual
classes, for example if a discussion forum implemented. Similar to the World Wide Web in its first 10
years, the role of the learner is limited to being a “consumer”: (S)he is able to browse, read and use
materials (e.g. tests or educational games) but has no possibilities to being actively engaged in the
production of (learning) content.
Within PLE, the active participation on (collaborative developed) content development, for example
blog postings, contributions to Wiki pages or participation in discussion forums or commenting on
Weblog posting from other community members, are the central idea of this new concept. Learners
are not, as in the Web 2.0 discussion often emphasised, only consumers of learning materials, but
become (also) producer of (learning) content. This new role can be called “prosumer”.
Educational experts often refer to the constructivist learning theory when talking about a learner
centred approaches focussing on the learner’s interests and (informal) activities. Originally a
philosophical approach, constructivism it also used and adapted to the field of learning. The
constructive view on learning results in a design of a learning environment facilitating the construction
of learner’s own knowledge: “The ideas underlying constructivism suggest that we shift from
designing learning environments that instruct to designing environments that influence the structure
of autopoetic unities in ways that conserves organization and adaptation” (Knuth & Cunningham
1993, 167). Self-organised learning can be seen as an activity in which individuals are primarily
responsible for their own planning, their performance and their evaluation of learning activities in
order to attain specific learning goals. A related concept is called “self-directed learning”. Malcolm
Knowles describes this approach as a process “in which individuals take the initiative, with or without
the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human
and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and
evaluating learning outcomes” (1975, 18).
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu • 4
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
Whereas the concept of LMS limits the role of learners to the possibilities of the learning
management system and the creativity of the teachers, the concept of PLE focuses on active, self-
directed, creators of content. Hence, the “Web 2.0” shift from “consumer” to “prosumer” can be
observed here.
Whereas the self organisation of learning is often seen as the base for competence development and
lifelong learning abilities which should be started to be developed even in schools. What makes it
difficult is that self organisation can not be assumed for every learner, even if she is an adult, the
learner could need additional support, tutoring and perhaps training in self organising his/her
learning. Besides the competencies, the need for self organisation challenges the reachability of
target groups: Not only the computer and the Internet are factually exclude several groups or milieus
from learning or education, the concept of “self organised learning” itself could be also seen as a
concept fitting to middle class milieus and so excludes target groups that prefer teacher-centred
approaches (cf. Bremer & Bittlingmayer 2008, Reinmann 2008).
2) A new perspective on personalisation
In LMS, the possibilities of personalisation are limited. For example a learner receives “success” to
his/her special courses or classes. A deeper differentiation of instruction or learning materials or even
personalisation is related to the teacher and his creative ideas, but very seldom implemented in a
LMS.
Nevertheless, personalisation plays a bigger role in other concepts: Personalisation in e-learning is
traditionally related to so-called intelligent tutor systems (ITS). Especially in the traditions of artificial
intelligence, approaches were developed to “personalise” and “adapt” learning content to the
learner’s needs with the usage of expert systems. Technological solutions were developed in the
fields of intelligent tutoring technologies or adaptive hypermedia technologies. E.g. the approach of
“instructional design” is based on the idea of the possibility to support learning in well-dosed,
sequenced instruction bits.
In Web based trainings (WBT) these instructions are adapted automatically in relation to prior
learning, learning styles or learners preferences. Particularly in the domain of artificial intelligence the
possibility of automated “content personalisation” is considered to be an automatic adaptation of the
learning content to the learner’s profile (facilitated by some intelligent reasoning). So-called
“intelligent tutors” were built to support learning: “the server should appear to act as an intelligent
tutor both with domain and pedagogical knowledge to conduct a learning session. It should use a
presentation planner to select, prepare, and adapt the domain material to show to the student. It also
must gradually build the student model during his session, in order to keep track of the student’s
actions and learning progress, detect and correct his/her errors and misconceptions, and possibly
redirect the session accordingly” (Devedižić 2006, 32).
Within Learning Management Systems, personalisation plays a lesser role. With the introduction of
the SCORM standardisation (SCORM 1.3, 2004), the first attempt to personalisation in LMS was
undertaken. This enables the LMS to guide a learner through a pre-defined learning process. Users
have to achieve a certain percentage of a test in order to access the next level. Having a closer look
at this type of personalisation, is becomes apparent that this only leads to an even more rigid corset
of pre-defined learning process.
These approaches for adapting learning content to learners’ interest, needs and prior knowledge are
not suitable for self-organised learning because with such intelligent tutoring systems, the possibilities
are generally limited to structuring and organising learning steps.
Within PLE, “personalisation” focuses on activities and possibilities to arrange structure, tools,
(external) aggregated materials, look-and-feel and so on. Personalisation means, to get information
about learning opportunities and content from multiple communities and services fitting to the
learner's interest. The sources of information are selected by the learner him- or herself. Self
organisation of learning and a selection of appropriate learning (re)sources within PLE are not only an
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu • 5
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
opportunity for the learner. It is also a challenge to think about their competences and their (required)
pre-knowledge: about using Social Software tools, coping with different learning strategies and their
status of media literacy.
3) The bazaar of learning opportunities from peers and experts
In LMS, the roles of the participants are clearly defined and described and are central for the
possibilities to act within the system: The content within LMS is developed by teachers, which are
mainly experts of a special domain.
While several approaches exist that reason about the integration of information environments (e.g.
digital libraries) and Learning Management Systems (McLean & Lynch 2003), none tackles the
integration of information from Web 2.0 with Learning Management Systems, e.g., professional and
user-generated content and community and user profiles on the Web with traditional e-learning
standards. Nowadays, there are attempts to implement interfaces in LMS to external Web content
and applications but these possibilities for integrating Social Software in LMS are in its infancy (cf.
Daalsgard 2006).
Besides this, in PLE does not only contain (learning) content of experts or teachers: the community,
“peers”, other learners with same interests, “friends” or colleagues, or even not personally known
persons build the base of the bazaar of learning opportunities. Here, PLE profit by the creation, offer
and usage of Open Educational Resources: According to the Geser (2007, 20) “open” means
therefore that the content (inclusively meta data) is provided free of charge, that the content is
liberally licensed for re-use, favourable free from restrictions to modify, combine and re-purpose, that
it is produced in open format and designed for easy re-use and developed and hosted with open
source software (see also e.g. Schaffert & Geser 2008).
Nevertheless, the change from content that was developed by experts and/or teachers towards
possibilities and challenges to make use of the bazaar of learning opportunities and content leads to
the necessity of advanced self-organising and searching in the Web – in other words: media
competent learners. But it has to be taken into account that there is a general discussion going on
that the next generation of learners is not (as often claimed) media literate. Current research (cf.
Schulmeister, 2008) claims that there is no “net generation” which deals differently with new
technology. So actually, there are no digital natives requiring a different type of teaching.
Nevertheless, users of the next generation will focus more on the different (learning) processes
supported by technology rather than on technology itself.
The main challenge will be the integration of different learning settings, different learner groups and
different sources. Within PLE, we assume that the integration can be implemented more flexible and
almost seamlessly, whereas LMS hinder these evolutions.
4) Social involvement and the role of community
We do not claim that it is not possible to build and foster a strong collaboration among peers in an
LMS, but this belongs not to the core idea of the technological concept: Collaboration and exchange
of peers is not in the focus of the LMS concept. LMS offer the opportunity to add discussion forums
and sometimes also collaborative (Wiki) spaces. The concept of LMS ignores or overlooks the role of
other humans and the community.
Current learning theories and approaches emphasise the importance of social involvement for
motivation, construction of knowledge, or as a source for support. For example, they play an
important and central role in concepts based on constructivism: learning shall be a recursive, self-
referential process and needs stimuli and challenge from others (Siebert 1998). For example, the
approach of “community of practice” by Etienne Wenger (2004) is dealing with learning in social
networks and interlinked structures of the World Wide Web. It is the combination of the following three
elements that constitutes such a community of practice: (a) a shared domain or interest in which one
does not necessarily need to know the others, (b) an engagement in joint activities and discussions,
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu • 6
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu • 7
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
to help each other, and to share information and (c) the presence of practitioners and the
development of a shared repertoire of resources as experiences, stories, tools, and ways of
addressing recurring problems. According to Wenger (2004), the development of these three
elements in parallel cultivates a community of practice. The PLE uses these possibilities for
communities and creates new forms of interaction and collaboration.
Within PLE, it is apparent that the connection to one or more learning communities serves as a key
driver for learning. Speaking more technically, PLE always needs and builds on communities. They
are needed for contributors, co-actors, and last, but not least, for someone to add /recommend (new)
learning content and/or metadata to existing content.
5) Ownership and protection of learner's data
Ownership and protection of learner's data are important factors but only rarely taken into account.
However, from our point of view, it should play an important role for the implementation of technology
enhanced learning, especially in educational settings and for policies. For the shift from LMS to PLE,
it is apparent that the problems concerning owner rights also change.
The learner's data within LMS are often sealed in these tools and can just insufficiently be (re-)
extracted by the learner him-/herself. So, even as owner of the content and data, the learner has in
fact limited possibilities; his/her data is under the control of the educational institution or organisation.
PLE and their openness to the world, even within social networks like Elgg21 or social networking
sites like Facebook22 (which have restricted access for public viewing) follow a different approach:
Here, all data and other available information is nearly totally open to the world. As the users usually
do not run their own Web server, they probably use (free of charge) Web services and free Web
based tools. Neither the personal data nor the copyright of individually created content is protected by
these service providers. This leads to the necessity to provide learners and users of PLE with the
awareness of the protection of personal data, additionally the awareness to provide own back-ups
and copies of the data, stored on services in the Web.
6) (Learning) culture in educational institutions and organisations as a consequence and
enabler
As above mentioned, LMS contributes to traditional ways of organising learning and education: in
lessons, courses, classes, from the perspective of administration and a focus on the teacher as an
expert.
The concept of PLE concentrates on active learners who are responsible and have the opportunities
to arrange their own learning environment: The usage of PLE or new forms of learning with Social
Software in general can be characterised as self-directed, decentralised, dynamic, communicative,
and situated within communities of practice, and learners are in the same sense consumers and
producers of content.
So, educational institutions as well as vocational and on-the-job-training in the industry seem to be
based on different requirements, which do not fit automatically into this notion of “E-Learning 2.0”, as
introduced by Stephen Downes (2005) recently. As current research has shown, the change of a
“learning culture” as a whole and a certain amount of openness in the whole enterprise can serve as
fruitful ground for new (vocational) learning in enterprises. Enterprises, which have already adapted
their company culture towards an open and free space for individual development and open learning,
have recently been coined as “Enterprise 2.0” (Hilzensauer & Schaffert 2008).
21 http://elgg.org/
22 http://www.facebook.com
7) Technological challenges
Currently, the technological developments concentrate on (but are not limited to) the interchange
between different, extra institutional data repositories. As there is a growing amount of freely
available content, there is a necessity to link between these existing materials and to provide an
accurate metadata structure. This implies that, in order to be standards compliant, both, the learning
content and the learning management system, must ensure that resources, which are about to be
connected, are compatible (IEEE 1990). But, as LMS are organised in a hierarchical structure, where
authors (the so-called domain experts) decide which (external) content to link or aggregate, the
challenge in this discussion is to provide a dynamic and flexible interface to set up and maintain the
list of external resources. Talking about personalisation, the problem becomes crucial when authors
want to provide materials, which should support different users in there different phases of the
learning process. The challenge is to find a (technological and procedural) solution in order to support
the learners effectively.
PLE, on the other hand, build on accessibility and usage of Social Software applications and tools
and therefore need as well a channel for the interchange of information. Contrary to existing e-
learning standards (LOM, SCOM, IMS-LD), the need for data exchange concentrates on more open
standards like RSS, XML or RPC. Focusing on the advantages of Social Software tools for self-
organised learning, there are several projects that try to combine the concept of LMS with the
opportunities of PLE: The success of Social Software in combination with learning leads to questions
about possibilities for integrating Social Software in existing stand alone systems (LMS) or to
separate them as a number of distributed applications (Daalsgard 2006). Currently, most projects
concentrate on integration with existing Learning Management Systems, others propose to implement
loosely-coupled tools on top of existing Learning Management Systems; to augment them with Social
Software tools as kinds of “overlay networks”.
Opening the Web2.0 for learning does not only mean that one gets access to a mass of articles but
also to the knowledge of experts by exploring their bookmarks. However, suggesting this loose
connection between two largely distinct worlds (i.e., the Web as an open environment and LMS as a
closed system in which interoperability is ensured by a set of standards) entails an investigation into
other ways for ensuring interoperability than currently implemented standards.
So, last, but not least, the shift or the inclusion of Social Software and the concept of PLE in existing
LMS system also rises new questions and challenges of technological nature.
Outlook
To sum up, these seven aspects shown the fundamental differences of the conception of LMS and
PLE and where new opportunities and challenges may lead. Whereas these challenges need – from
our perspective – a rising awareness among the promoters of PLE, we also see that the current
requirements of competence development, the call for supporting open educational practices and
informal learning activities and a shift from rather static and instructor-based learning to a more user-
oriented, socially-enhanced learning is needed. The support of PLE or Social Software in general is
crucial for the individual competence development (Fiedler & Kieslinger 2006) but as we had
discussed not be seen as fitting to all target groups and settings. Additionally, the knowledge society
demands competencies and skills that require innovative educational practices based on open
sharing and the evaluation of ideas, fostering creativity and teamwork among the learners, which can
be provided by PLE.
The vast number of tools, supporting collaboration on the Web is an indicator that PLE and Social
Software tools are not only a flash in the pan, but lead to a new notion of learning and a measure for
sustainable competence development. Nevertheless, the existing approaches and ideas for PLE
needs further development and elaboration, the current research and practice show several
interesting feature which could be used in further realisations. These could be, but are not limited to
ideas as semantic analysis of learning activities, tagging opportunities with a focus on
appropriateness for learning, visualisation of communities and persons with similar (learning)
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu • 8
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
interests, new approaches to content and network analysis, and a technical integration of different
LMS.
Last but not least, the reality of learning and educational practice is not only a technical question,
“although changing technologies are key drivers in educational change” (Attwell 2007): The challenge
for educational practice will be to develop, realise and establish new approaches for learning and
didactical concepts which builds on the advantages of the concept of a PLE, they should not maintain
a teacher-centred and passive approach of learning. The facilitating of open educational practices as
the e-portfolio method is needed (cf. Attwell, Chrzaszcz, Hilzensauer, Hornung-Prähauser & Pallister
2007).
References
Anderson, Terry (2006). PLEs versus LMS: Are PLEs ready for Prime time? In: Virtual Canuck – Teaching and
Learning in a Net-Centric World, retrieved June 5 2008 from http://terrya.edublogs.org/2006/01/09/ples-versus-
lms-are-ples-ready-for-prime-time/
Attwell, Graham (2007). The Personal Learning Environments – the future of eLearning? In: eLearning Papers,
2 (1), retrieved February 29 2008 from http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/media11561.pdf
Attwell, Graham; Chrzaszcz, Agnieszka; Hilzensauer, Wolf; Hornung-Prähauser, Veronika & Pallister, John
(2007). Grab your future with an e-portfolio – Study on new qualifications and skills needed by teachers and
career counsellors to empower young learners with the e-portfolio concept and tools – Summary Report.
Poland, retrieved May 28 2008 from http://www.mosep.org/study
Bremer, Helmut & Bittlingmayer, Uwe H. (2008). Die Ideologie des selbstgesteuerten Lernens und die „sozialen
Spiele“ in Bildungseinrichtungen. In: Schulheft, 2 (forthcoming).
Daalsgard, Christian (2006). Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems. In: European
Journal of Open, distance and e-learningretrieved January, 31 2008 from
http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Christian_Dalsgaard.htm
Devedižić, Vladan (2006). Semantic Web and Education. New York. Springer.
Downes, Stephen (2005). E-Learning 2.0. In: eLearn Magazine, retrieved January, 31 2008 from
http://elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1
Fiedler, Sebastian & Kieslinger, Barbara (2006). Adapting to Changing Landscapes in Education. In:
Proceedings of Microlearning 2006, Innsbruck, Austria.
Geser, Guntram (2007). Open Educational Practices and Resources – OLCOS Roadmap 2012. Salzburg,
retrieved January, 31 2008 from
http://edumedia.salzburgresearch.at/images/stories/EduMedia/Inhalte/Publications/olcos_roadmap.pdf
Hilzensauer, Wolf & Schaffert, Sandra (2008). Wikis und Weblogs bei SUN Microsystem: eine
Erfolgsgeschichte eines Enterprise 2.0. In: Andrea Back, Horst Baumgartner, Norbert Gronau & Klaus
Tochtermann (Ed.), Web 2.0 in der Unternehmenspraxis. Grundlagen, Fallstudien und Trends zum Einsatz von
Social Software. München: Oldenbourg.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (1990). IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary: A Compilation of
IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries. New York.
Knowles, Malcom S. (1975). Self-Directed Learning. A guide for learners and teachers. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall/Cambridge.
Knuth, Randy A. & Cunningham, Donald J. (1993). Tools for Constructivism. In: Thomas M. Duffy, Joost
Lowyck & David H. Jonassen (Ed.). Designing Environment for Constructive Learning. Berlin: Springer, 163-
188.
Koch, Michael & Richter, Alexander (2007). Enterprise 2.0: Planung, Einführung und erfolgreicher Einsatz von
Social Software in Unternehmen. München: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag.
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu • 9
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
McLean, N. & Lynch, C. (2003). Interoperability between Information and Learning Environments – Bridging the
Gaps. A Joint White Paper on behalf of the IMS Global Learning Consortium and the Coalition for Networked
Information, retrieved June, 3 2008 from http://www.imsglobal.org/DLims_white_paper_publicdraft_1.pdf
Reinmann, Gabi (2008). Selbstorganisation im Netz – Anstoß zum Hinterfragen impliziter Annahmen und
Prämissen. Arbeitsbericht 18, retrieved June, 3 2008 from http://www.imb-uni-
augsburg.de/files/Arbeitsbericht_18.pdf
Schaffert, Sandra; Bürger, Tobias; Hilzensauer, Wolf & Schaffert, Sebastian (2008). Underlying Concepts and
Theories of Learning with the Semantic Web. In: Marco Kalz, Rob Koper, Veronika Hornung-Prähauser &
Michaela Luckmann (Ed.): TSSOL 2008, Technology Support for Self-Organized Learners, Proceedings,
EduMedia Conference 2008, Salzburg, Austria, May 26, p. 67-83, retrieved June 8 2008 from
http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-349/schaffert.pdf
Schaffert, Sandra & Geser, Guntram (2008). Open Educational Resources and Practices. In: eLearning Papers,
7, retrieved May 28 2008 from http://www.elearningeuropa.info/out/?doc_id=13965&rsr_id=14907
Schaffert, Sebastian (2007). Semantic Social Software: Semantically Enabled Social Software or Socially
Enabled Semantic Web? In: Jorg Rech, Bjorn Decker & Eric Ras (Ed.), Emerging Technologies for Semantic
Work Environments: Techniques, Methods, and Applications. Hershey: Information Science Reference.
Schulmeister, Rolf (1997). Grundlagen hypermedialer Lernsysteme. München: Oldenbourg.
Schulmeister, Rolf (2008). Gibt es eine Net Generation? Work in Progress. Hamburg 2008, retrieved June 5
2008 from http://www.zhw.uni-hamburg.de/pdfs/Schulmeister_Netzgeneration.pdf
Siebert, Horst (1998). Konstruktivismus. Konsequenzen für Bildungsmanagement und. Seminargestaltung.
Deutsches Institut für Erwachsenenbildung, retrieved January, 31 2008 from http://www.die-
bonn.de/esprid/dokumente/doc-1998/siebert98_01.pdf
Wenger, Etienne (2004). Communities of practice – a brief introduction, retrieved January, 31 2008 from
http://www.ewenger.com/theory/
Wikipedia (2008). History of personal learning environments. Retrieved May 30 2008 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_personal_learning_environments
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu • 10
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
eLearning Papers • www.elearningpapers.eu • 11
Authors
Dr. Sandra Schaffert
Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft
Application Area “Education and Media”
sandra.schaffert@salzburgresearch.at
Mag. Wolf Hilzensauer
Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft
Application Area “Education and Media”
wolf.hilzenauer@salzburgresearch.at
Copyrights
The texts published in this journal, unless otherwise indicated, are subject to a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivativeWorks 2.5 licence. They
may be copied, distributed and broadcast provided that the author and the e-journal that publishes
them, eLearning Papers, are cited. Commercial use and derivative works are not permitted. The full
licence can be consulted on http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/
Edition and production
Name of the publication: eLearning Papers
ISSN: 1887-1542
Publisher: elearningeuropa.info
Edited by: P.A.U. Education, S.L.
Postal address: C/ Muntaner 262, 3º, 08021 Barcelona, Spain
Telephone: +34 933 670 400
Email: editorial@elearningeuropa.info
Internet: www.elearningpapers.eu
Nº 9 • July 2008 • ISSN 1887-1542
