Competences and Learning Profiles of Digital Age's Students

Abstract

In the connected world we live in today, people no longer look for information only in formal places. Internet has become a place of choice to gather information. Social networks have grown from places for socialization to platforms where knowledge is created and shared, where connectivity and collaboration are natural. Many people look at the web as a place for learning, using it to create a network which allows them to gather, select, share, reshape ideas and create knowledge to then replicate on social networks. Students' learning profile is becoming more proactive in the search for information and constructing valid knowledge. The demands of the information age raise the necessity of students to acquire different skills and competences – 21st century skills. This chapter aims to present the different students' learning profiles and the type of learning environments available online.

Full text

Competences and Learning Profiles of
Digital Age's Students
Ana Loureiro
Instituto Politécnico de Santarém | CIDTFF Universidade de Aveiro, Portugal
Inês Messias
Universidade Aberta, Portugal
ABSTRACT
In the connected world we live in today, people no longer look for information only in formal
places. Internet has become a place of choice to gather information. Social networks have
grown from places for socialization to platforms where knowledge is created and shared, where
connectivity and collaboration are natural. Many people look at the web as a place for learning,
using it to create a network which allows them to gather, select, share, reshape ideas and
create knowledge to then replicate on social networks. Students’ learning profile is becoming
more proactive in the search for information and constructing valid knowledge. The demands of
the information age raise the necessity of students to acquire different skills and competences –
21st century skills. This article aims to present the different students’ learning profiles and the
type of learning environments available online.
Keywords: 21st Century Skills, Digital Literacy, Social Web, Personal Learning Network, Virtual
Learning Environment, i-Generation, Digital age, Learning profile
INTRODUCTION
Today’s society is considered to be digital, due to the proliferation of computer and communication
technology. Computers, cell phones and Internet have become more accessible for personal use, and a
requirement of the workplace. Castells (2005) states: the network society is not the emerging social
structure of the Information Age: it already configures the nucleus of our societies”. In the past
few years academic researchers developed various studies that show “the commonality of this
nucleus across cultures, as well as the cultural and institutional differences of the network
society in various contexts.
Students learning processes and profiles have changed with digital technology, no longer relying only in
formal learning contexts for acquiring knowledge, they became more proactive in their search for
information and turn to the contents they can find in the Internet. The search for online courses has grown
and it's not showing signs of stopping, more than one in four education students now take at least
one course online (Allen & Seaman, 2010). Students are in a continuous process of learning, through
their personal networks and connections they update throughout their lives. Learning is no longer formal,
it is informal, non-formal and natural. It occurs in several and different contexts.
Social and collaborative web are making changes in the way students learn, especially in a distance
learning format. Students use simultaneously diverse types of media in their daily lives, therefore to them
traditional teaching is poorly stimulating. Education is in need of change, becoming more personalized,

reflexive, social connected, involving and permitting instant gratification to embrace both native and
digital immigrants (Prensky, 2001).
Social Web, virtual environments and Web 2.0 tools, by nature, are spaces that allow a closer contact
between users, enhancing cooperation, collaboration and socialization among them. Students daily use it,
but to actually learn and retain knowledge available on the web there is the need of acquire digital skills
(e-skills), social (soft) skills and be digitally literate.
This article aims to know if and how these competences and access to digital and virtual tools are
changing students learning processes and profiles, and how the learning that occurs in VLE (Virtual
Learning Environments) and PLE (Personal Learning Environments) are allowing them to be more
participative in constructing their knowledge. To achieve this goal a literature review will be presented
along with examples about the different students’ profiles, the different forms of learning, of personal and
virtual learning networks and connectivism and how these impact e-learning contexts.
BACKGROUND
Students need to acquire certain skills and competences, specific of a digital and connected society in
order to effectively benefit from e-government, e-learning and e-health services, and participate
actively in the knowledge society as co-creators, and not simply consumers, as highlighted by the
European e-skills strategy (McCormack, 2010). To only possess hard skills (that comes with
experience and formal education) may not be enough to get a job. Besides e-skills and e-literacy
competences, soft and social skills are also a demand. These skills and competences can be practiced and
enhanced in virtual environments - which are by nature social and collaborative spaces. Students have
access to virtual worlds with role-play and simulations, social networks and a wide range of web 2.0
tools, which allow them to practice and develop some of these skills and competences. In an e-learning
format, which normally means to study at a distance of ‘brick and mortar’ tertiary institutions, e-skills are
a demand. And in spite of what one might think, to learn at a distance is not by itself a synonymous of
being isolated from the world; on the contrary, to be able to socialize and communicate is crucial, so that
the student can maintain motivated, and also so that he can take advantage of collaborative tools to create
and share knowledge. Therefore the acquisition of soft and social skills are mandatory.
Web 2.0 and 3.0 is changing the way students learn. It has already changed the way they interact with
each other and with the world. The social web is part of their daily lives, giving them the possibility to
connect and share with peers their personal lives, through social networking. But they don’t only use
Internet socially, they use it to read the news, listen to music and also gather information about school
related subjects. In fact students are used to utilize simultaneously diverse types of media, giving them a
new profile as students, who find traditional teaching uninteresting. E-learning environments, such as
VLE or PLE are now complementing traditional teaching, giving access to live conferencing, video
sharing, and other collaborative tools that permit students to organize their learning spaces as it suits them
best.
Students’ proactiveness in using the web to gather information is no longer an issue to the teacher;
students are already doing it. The teacher’s role changes, and now includes giving competences to guide
them in knowing where, how and what information to select from all what its available.
A crucial competence is that of networking (i.e. being connected). The more relevant connections one has
in one’s study field, the more relevant information one accesses. Therefore, social networks play an
important part in gathering sources for valid contents.
MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER
Forms of Learning

According with Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) there are three forms
of learning - Formal, Informal and Non-formal. Besides these three we can also learn in a Natural form.
We assume as Formal learning all the learning that occurs in classroom contexts (either in presence or
online), which requires the presence or mediation of a teacher, sometimes recurring to additional tools.
According to Cross (2009), Learning is formal when someone other than the learner sets
curriculum. Typically, it’s an event, on a schedule and completion is generally recognized with a
symbol, such as a grade, gold star, certificate or check mark in a learning management system.
Formal learning is pushed on learners. This form of learning occurs essentially when a student
attends to class in a formal institution. And is the one we use for most of our student life as it may confer
a formal recognition in the form of a certificate or diploma.
Informal learning can be defined as a result of doing daily activities. It is not organised nor has a formal
recognition, for it can be made during daily tasks, such as observation, asking questions, trial and error,
and sometimes it can even be accidental. According to OECD, Informal learning is never organised,
has no set objective in terms of learning outcomes and is never intentional from the learner’s
standpoint. Often it is referred to as learning by experience or just as experience. Therefore we
can consider it as all learning that we acquire without intention, but even so it able us to know something
we didn’t know before.
The definition of Non-formal learning is not consensual, for it over lapses the definition of formal and
informal learning. To most authors it can be referred as semi-organized and intentional, meaning it may or
may not have organised activities but that it has a learning objective. Coraldyn & Bjornavold (2004) state
that it consists of learning embedded in planned activities that are not explicitly designated as
learning, but which contain an important learning element. Considering this, most of the adult
learning is being done this way, because it is flexible and has tasks that can be done at your own pace.
This form of learning, in order to avoid an over lapse, according to the OECD, must be strictly defined
to be operational, by being mutual exclusive. An example of a non-formal form of learning can be the
PLEs. In a PLE the individual organizes their own learning environment according with their needs.
In a Natural form of learning, the learning process is individual and occurs because the learner wants to
learn independently of the time/place they are in, at their own pace and in an autonomous way
(Bettencourt, 2010). Therefore to learn in a Natural way depends on the level of socialization an
individual can carry out - more the socialization more the person will learn (Loureiro, Santos &
Bettencourt, 2012), therefore, individuals have to be embedded in a community of sharing (Bettencourt,
2010). A good example of a Natural learning context can be virtual worlds - such as Second Life®
(http://secondlife.com/). In this particular 3D immersive virtual world, learning processes are focused in
communities of sharing. For learning to occur and knowledge to be achieved each learner has to immerse
himself in the community becoming part of it. Another example of natural learning context can be when
an individual goes to a foreign country in order to learn a new language by immersing in the community
of the country.
In the following figure (cf. Figure 1) we resume the four forms of learning and how they relate with one
another.
Figure 1. Forms of Learning and their relation
Digital Literacy
Digital literacy or e-literacy is a group of competences that allows an individual to acquire knowledge
through digital processes. It refers to the awarenesses, skills, understandings, and reflective

approaches necessary for an individual to operate comfortably in information-rich and IT-
enabled environments. (Martin & Ashworth, 2004)
To better understand digital literacy, first is important to understand the literacy concept - the ability to
comprehend what we read, to give meaning, understand written language. Not having any relation to the
fact of one being educated or not.
So being digital literate does not refers only to the capability to use a computer or an email, but to the
capability to gather, understand, interpret and share information available in all digital media. Being
digital literate gives us the ability to communicate and work more efficiently, because it involves
understanding how all digital devices work and how they can be used to interact with society. Digital
literacy is a person’s ability to perform tasks effectively in a digital environment (...) Literacy
includes the ability to read and interpret media, to reproduce data and images through digital
manipulation, and to evaluate and apply new knowledge gained from digital environments.
(Jones-Kavalier & Flannigan, 2006)
According to the California ICT Digital Literacy Assessments and Curriculum Framework, to be digitally
literate involves: (i) to have access to information and know how to collect it in digital environments, (ii)
to manage and organize information for future application, (iii) to evaluate, integrate, interpret and
compare information from multiple sources, (iv) to create and generate knowledge by adapting, applying
and authoring information, (v) and to communicate information to various audiences and through use of
an appropriate medium. For that purpose it is crucial to have information literacy skills. The information
literacy comprehends knowledge of one's needs and problems with information, and the ability to
identify, locate, evaluate, organize and create, use and communicate effectively the information to solve
existing problems or issues (cf. Figure 2). According with the American Library Association (2010),
information literacy is the set of skills needed to find, retrieve, analyze, and use information (…)
Ultimately, information literate people are those who have learned how to learn. They know how
to learn because they know how knowledge is organized, how to find information, and how to use
information in such a way that others can learn from them. They are people prepared for lifelong
learning, because they can always find the information needed for any task or decision at hand.
Being in the possess of the above mentioned competences, a person will be able to learn, work and
interact effectively in the digital networked society, and also have the life-long ability to locate, evaluate,
use and create information – in a summary form: to generate knowledge (cf. Figure 2)
Figure 2. Information Literacy
E-Skills
In a digital society the demand for e-skills has been growing fast. These are crucial to boost
competitiveness, productivity and innovation as well as the professionalism and unplayability of
the workforce (McCormack, 2010).
There is more to e-skills than the basic ICT skills. Actually we can find three major types of e-skills: (i)
ICT practitioner skills; (ii) ICT user skills; and (iii) ICT business skills.
ICT practitioner skills are those required to make research, design and develop, manage and maintain ICT
systems. Most of the times to do this its required profound knowledge of ICT systems, hence one must
have some level of academic formation. ICT user skills is the most common of all. It relates to the
capabilities that allow an individual to use the ICT systems and devices, giving the user the confident and
critical use of ICT to support their work, leisure, learning and communication. ICT user skills also cover
the use of common software tools. E-Business skills relate to the capabilities one needs to exploit
opportunities provided by ICT, notably the Internet, to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of an

organization performance on different grounds; this type of skill includes also the capability to explore
possibilities for new ways of conducting business processes and/or to establish new businesses.
According with Lenvin, so that students acquire the needed e-skills, some action is needed. Therefore
Tertiary education is the right place to start, because it is the right context to think of generating
not only the brains that Europe needs, but also the minds that it deserves (cited in McCormack,
2010).
Students with e-skills are capable of critical thinking, multitasking and collaborating in team work. As
McCormack (2010) says, our society needs e-skilled people to provide the infrastructure and e-
skilled people to use it. An e-skilled society is thus a precursor to a knowledge-based society.
Soft Skills & Social Skills
Besides hard skills students also need to acquire soft skills. Soft skills are personality traits, qualities and
also social skills which every student possesses although in varying degrees - it is related with emotional
intelligence. On the other hand social skills are the set of skills that allow students to communicate, relate
and socialize with others. Socialization is a key factor for learning - and that means connecting,
communicating, interacting and establishing relationships. According with Schultz (2008), the most
important soft skills are related with:
• communication skills (proficiency in spoken and written language as well as to know what to say
and how to say it in different occasions);
• critical and structured thinking along with analytical skills (problem solving capability);
• and creativity (ability of thinking out of the box, often needed to find innovative approaches to
problem solving).
In most Tertiary curricula students graduate with a high level of knowledge in a certain field - hard skills.
But nowadays most companies also look for soft and social skills. Soft skills are what shapes our
personality, enable social competences, for they complement the technical skills required to do a job, and
so are equally as important as to have technical and scientific knowledge.
Students profiles in the connected age
Having grown up surrounded by digital technology, from television to computers and game stations, cell
phones and, more recently, tablets, today’s youth are used to digital and to use several devices
simultaneously. We could dare to say that today’s students are digitally-savvy, utilizing any sort of digital
device almost intuitively, and the skill of using several devices at the same time makes them also expert
in multitasking. In addition to these characteristics, the youth of today have in common a set of skills that
unites them, being possible to draw a profile of the youth of today. But more than that, it is important to
know whether this profile alters their characteristics as students. Given the influence that the web 2.0 and
digital tools have had on the profile of today's youth it is necessary to understand how these contribute to
their student’s profile, what are their characteristics, what skills they need to develop to be useful for their
professional future and what do they seek for out of university education today.
There are specific terms for the various generations of students. Some older, some more current terms,
that describe a generation increasingly linked to digital. Jones & Shao (2011) list some of the most
referenced terms such as Millennials, used by Howe and Strauss (1991, 2000 and 2003), Net
generation, defended by Tapscott (1998 and 2009). Obliger & Oblinger (2005) mention the terms
Digital Natives / Digital Immigrants used by Prensky (2001a, 2001b, 2009 and 2010) and Palfrey and
Gasser (2008), the term Generation Y, described by Jorgensen (2003), Weiler (2005) and McCrindle
(2006 ), the term IM Generation used by Lenhart, Rainie and Lewis (2001), the term Gamer

generation, described by Carstens and Beck (2005) and Homo Zappiens defended by Veen (2006).
Shao states that each one of the terms presented by these authors differ depending on the social context in
which they are involved, but similar terms arise between them. As for more modern terms the author
refers to two generations: Google generation, with the term assigned by Rowlands et al. (2008) and i-
Generation identified by Rosen (2010).
It thus becomes important to define some of the terms discussed, so that it is possible then to define a
potential profile for the higher education student, in order to adopt appropriate teaching strategies to their
learning profiles.
The term Millennials first appears in 1991, by Howe and Strauss, describing this generation as those
born after 1982. The authors identify several features that give not only the influence of digital
technologies existing at the time, as society and the economic environment they lived. Optimistic, with
preference for teamwork, successful in studies and, with appetites to follow rules, heroic, collegial and
rationalists, with strong values of community and technology. These last two, seen by Jones & Shao
(2011) as the two most interesting values of this generation. For the same age group, other authors
suggest a different term: Net generation. Rosen (2011) says the millennials prefer this term because it is
more specific as to the influence the internet has had in this generation. To this author the Net-geners,
born between 1980 and 1990, never lived in a world without the Internet, mobile phones or computer
games.
Although Rosen (2010) overlaps the definitions of Digital Native with the i-Generation, we think it is
more accurate to separate these terms, as in the European case the use of digital devices from Apple has
had a wider adhesion only recently due to a possible technological gap relative to the US case, although
the use of other digital devices is a reality that already happens for a longer time.
Prensky (2001) defines Digital Natives as those who grew up using digital technology, arguing that the
skills they have acquired due to this technology (capable of multitasking, impatient due to the habit of
having immediate access to information, preferring visual information and hypertext to books, working
best in networks, enjoying being motivated and rewarded) have contributed to the change in their way of
thinking and studying, since they are native speakers of the digital language. It is now clear that as a
result of this ubiquitous environment and the sheer volume of their interaction with it, today's
students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors.
(Prensky, 2001a). Assuming that the way of thinking of digital natives has changed, Prensky, concludes
that the structure of their brains also changed, developing more some areas, such as visual and spatial,
over others, such as the capacity for reflection and transforming the experienced in acquired knowledge.
As for the definition of i-Generation attributed by Rosen (2010) it is more specific, since the "i" is due to
the wide use they make of iPods, iTunes, Wii, iChat, iPhone and iHome. The author suggests that this
term can be applied to those born after 1990, however, for the general European population, the wide use
of these devices arises only after 2000. Thus, in the european case those born after 2000 can be called i-
geners, and we expect that they begin to arrive at universities in about four or five years, bringing with
them their particular learning profiles. Thus, this is the students’ profile teachers need to start preparing
for.
The i-Generation is described by Rosen (2010) as having the following characteristics:
• Grew up with technology - literally have contact with digital technology from birth, being the
center of their lives. Learned early to surf the internet, some even before knowing how to read
and write properly, to play online and watch videos. In adolescence research and consult the web
with ease to both issues related to school, and leisure. Many had never consulted an
encyclopaedia on paper or been to a library. Have the most current gaming consoles, which they
use daily. For them, a world without internet, phone or tablet is not imaginable.

• Constantly connected - The youth of i-Gen are online since they rise until they lie down, some
remain attached even after going to bed, putting cell phones just silent. According to studies
conducted by the author, young people today spend on average 21 hours a day online. This high
number is only possible because most of the time they are online they are not focused only on the
computer, but doing multitasking.
• Multitasking - Many young i-Gen study, listen to music, watch TV, talk, do meals, always online,
always reachable, even though they are doing other tasks. Communication and being contactable
is a central part of their lives, as well as playing a part of their daily routines. Not only do they
believe they can accomplish more than one task at a time with rigor, as they become annoyed
when are bound to be exclusively focused on a task. Most teens, simply can not unitask. It is too
simple and too quiet and too restricting. (Rosen, 2010).
• Always contactable - Communication is so important to the youth of i-Gen that the tools they use
are mostly for that reason. The phones beyond talking and texting provide access to social
networks and the computer can now be used to make video calls and phone calls. They are always
updated with the latest versions of mobile phones, tablets and computers, always with new
applications that allow you to communicate anywhere, in any circumstance, with several people
at once.
• Online Social Interaction - Social networks are seen as a means to initiate and maintain
friendships with people with common interests. This need to maintain contact in online social
networks can be explained due to lack of time caused by filled school schedules, and by the more
competitive school that requires hours of study and various extracurricular activities in which
they participate. Young people have little time to socialize face-to-face, leading to online
socialization. Nearly all belong to more than one social network, which they visit daily and take
part in various posts, talk privately or in groups. They even feel less embarrassment chatting
online than at presence, being more interactive, direct and communicative.
• Creating and sharing content - The youth of i-Gen spends a lot of time creating and sharing
content on social networks. They create their own Websites, blogs, videos, share photos, thoughts
and opinions.
• Unique learning style- They learn best by touching, moving, doing, experiencing. When you see
a teen ignore the manual for his new video game console and simply start pressing all the
buttons, there is no doubt that there is a decided preference for tactile/kinaesthetic learning.
(Rosen, 2010).
• Need constant motivation - are motivated by encouragement. Are not satisfied with just rewards
at the end of the tasks, they need to hear that they are doing a good job during and after the task.
Computer games give them that satisfaction as well as do the opposite when they lose the game.
• Strong family ties - They enjoy living with their parents and even say that spending time with
family makes them happy.
• Confident - They see themselves achieving their professional goals without any doubts and this
feature makes them motivated and interested in learning, thus the environment is stimulating and
the topic of their interest.
• Open to change - They enjoy all that is new and innovative, being curious by nature.
• Collective Reflection - As they enjoy socializing they like this aspect to be present in school, so
closing the dialog confining it only to the area of the classroom can be demotivating.
• Instant Gratification - Due to the rapidity, characteristic of digital tools, they expect the adult /
teacher to answer their questions and curiosities alike.

Still according to Rosen (2011) no one has all the characteristics of a specific generation, each of us can
present a profile with mixed characteristics, from different generations, provided by the context and
environment in which we grow. Still, the author suggests a chronological order for generations: 1) Baby
Boomers (1946-1964); 2) Generation X (1965-1979); 3) Generation Net (1980 - 1989) prices; 4) i-
Generation (after 1990). And though the author demarcates the youth of i-Gen as all the born after 1990,
in Europe, for the majority of the population, by this time, the circumstances presented by the author had
not yet been verified. Indeed, only in the last 10 years or so, it might be said that young Europeans are
living in this context, with the necessary means to acquire these features that are part of the i-Generation.
Thus we propose the following timeline, slightly modified:
Figure3. Proposed chronological order for generations
In other hand Rowlands et al. (2008) propose the term for the Google generation to those born after 1993,
having grown up surrounded by the internet. While this description, initially, is much simplistic, the authors
consider some features for this profile, such as feeling more comfortable with a computer than with pen
and paper, or using search engines, like Google, to do research instead of safer means, where they can be
sure of the validity of the content. These same authors suggest that many young people do not attend
libraries, or have the notion that today there are diverse libraries with digital files. They refer these young
people preferring quick searches to slower ones but more effective on the validity and therefore, one can
conclude that the contents they absorb are most often superficial. Given these initial data the authors analyse
some of the features other authors attribute to the youth of the digital age:
• They are more competent with technology - The authors state that it is necessary to take into
account that most young people use simple applications, while the older ones tend to use more
complex applications, often for professional reasons.
• They have high expectations for ICT - according to the authors most young do, because they take
into account the impact that these have had not only in society as well in the business world too.
• They prefer interaction and are proactive - the authors believe most young people shown to have
these characteristics and can be proved given the choice of tools and applications that they make.
• They prefer to communicate through written messages - the authors state that this characteristic is
difficult to prove since today, apart from face to face conversation, text message are the most
financially affordable.
• They master multitasking - though there are no studies to prove this assertion, the authors believe
that being exposed to various types of media may develop good skills in processing information
in parallel.
• View teaching with technology access as more motivating - the authors believe that for some
young people this is true, however, warn that the use of technology in the classroom should be
done carefully and properly.
• They prefer visual information - although confirming this feature the authors note that text still
plays a very important role.
• Require immediate response - the authors state that there are no studies to support this feature,
which sees young people as intolerant and impatient.
• It is more important what they read online than what they learn in formal education or with
authority figures - the authors doesn’t believe this is true, because early on students learn to rely
on textbooks and knowledge of teachers. They suggest that this may arise from some personal
comments of young rebels.

• They have the need to be always online - authors attribute this feature to all of us and not just the
Google generation.
• They are the generation of the cut and paste - this feature is given as true, and the authors state
that there are unfortunately more and more problems with plagiarism.
• Learning by trial and error - Although the authors do not believe that this feature is real, they
present no concrete example.
• They prefer summaries to original texts - These authors believe it to be true not only for the youth
but also for adults. They refer the increasing tendency, and state that even researchers read the
abstracts of articles to make a pre-selection of the full article. They believe that the whole society
is less intelligent: Society is dumbing down.
• They are natural born researchers - As stated above, although many young people do online, the
authors believe that the surveys they do are in their majority superficial and done only using the
online search engines.
• They think it's all on the web and it's all free - The authors believe that unfortunately some people
still think that this is true, but do note that most do not even know of the existence of online
libraries.
• Do not respect intellectual property - authors state that this is not entirely true, since most
advocate open source, but many do plagiarism regularly.
With these data in mind, the authors propose the flexible profile, and refer that we all have one or another
of the features presented, regardless of our age. They argue that we all use the web 2.0 and that while the
younger more easily adopt new applications, the older people have been following the trend, and were
even nicknamed Silver Surfers. In most of the European population, although this may happen in the
active population, which for professional reasons have felt the need to use web 2.0, the population over 60
years old, with fewer studies demonstrate not to have technological skills to use the web autonomously.
When considering the profile employers demand, Van Dorp and Monteros (2010) suggest three student
profiles: academics, entrepreneurs and employable. They describe students with academic profile as the
ones having a scientific basis and a strong imagination, and although not very practical, they are the ones
that solve problems or suggest alternatives and innovative ideas. When a problem is really bad, one
should rather wait and pray for an unpractical man. The more serious the trouble gets, the more
probable it will be that some knowledge of scientific theory will be required (Chesterton (1874-
1936) in Van Dorp & Monteros). Even though they are not practical, those with this profile become
indispensable in the business world, insofar as their knowledge allows them to find creative alternatives
for problems. The employable profile is defined as being sociable, flexible, tactful and only with
knowledge about a specific subject. Its profile is sought because it works very well in a team. It is
increasingly sought to develop innovative ideas in teams. Employability depends on so much more
than explicit (subject specific) knowledge, but has a lot to do with personal skills and sociability.
(Van Dorp and Monteros, 2010). The entrepreneurial characteristic is referred to as mandatory for all
students, because everyone should be able not only to produce ideas, inventions and discoveries, but
should show as continuously investing in their training, so they are always up to date and bring along
innovative strategies and visions. We must indeed strongly promote that students are equipped with
the ability to induce change brought about by own discovery or invention, or by adopting
discoveries or inventions brought about by external drivers. (Van Dorp and Monteros, 2010).
Furthermore, these authors mention certain skills that students should acquire as being: (i) to generate,
judge and validate knowledge; (ii) satisfy the human capital of the labour market; (iii) contribute to
creation and innovation.

The student of today has digital culture, i.e., know how to use a large number of basic web tools for their
day-to-day tasks, but to use these same tools for the acquisition and creation of knowledge is necessary, to
first know how to reflect and know how to adapt knowledge in innovative ways. These competencies
should be given by teachers, the latter having to master all the necessary skills in order to them pass them
on to their students. The web 2.0 in learning, when applied correctly, can lead students to collaborative
work, brainstorming and the construction of knowledge in cooperation. Emerging digital tools make it
easier for students to ask and respond to each other's questions and for teachers to provide
feedback in real-time (Johnson et al., 2014). It is up to the teacher, with the knowledge of the skills that
students must acquire to enter easily in the world of work, to show students the impact that the proper use
of these tools has on acquiring the knowledge and the skills essential for their future career.
Social and collaborative environments in e-learning
Since the appearance of email, in the 1990, ICT has evolved, today several formal learning management
platforms are available to all, and with it the opportunity of accessing learning at a distance though online
platforms, it has broken geographic and economic barriers for many, allowing a growth on lifelong
learning as well. However even though these resources exist it does not mean that actual learning takes
place for everyone. Certain skills are required to these learning experiences reach the high quality
necessary, for the student as well as for the teacher, to this type of experience. In fact most say the teacher
plays a decisive role in rising the platform to its full potential. As Thorpe (2005) says: the promise of the
new media is just that – a promise or potential that can only be realised through skilled and
creative design and teaching, on the part of both the local tutor and the course team. (...) lack of
success in use of ICT may result as much from cultural differences in how people expect to learn,
as from any feature of the new media themselves.
In addition to e-learning formal platforms, today’s society, access to information and therefore to
knowledge seems to be easier, as students have access to a wide variety of resources allowing formal,
informal, non-formal and natural learning contexts, without leaving their homes. With the advent of
Social and collaborative environments, students became more active and participative - they not only
access to contents but also create and share them, becoming reactive.
Communication has evolved, the new media allows now live conferencing, video sharing, social
networking, collaborative tools, allowing the student to create, work collaboratively and communicate in
a more direct way with their peers and their teachers. Instead of merely searching for information,
applications such as bookmarking, feeds, tweeter and pinboards, digital portfolios, etc., along with the
possibility of creating your own personal webpage, today’s Web gives students also the chance to create a
PLE. As Attwell (2007) mentioned, a PLE recognizes that learning is continuing and seeks to
provide tools to support that learning. In a PLE the individual is responsible for the management of
their own learning environment and for the selection of tools and contexts where learning will take place.
But for better understand how social and collaborative web can contribute to enhance e-learning first it's
necessary to understand their individual characteristics.
Web 2.0 (or social Web) can be defined as the collaborative web - with an emphasis to online
collaboration and sharing among users. As O´Reilly (2005) said, Web 2.0 is the collective intelligence
of everyone who uses the web to upload, download, add comments, provide feedback, add tags
and actively engage in the creation of new knowledge. Users are no longer only passive receptors of
knowledge, they are active participators, by creating, sharing and commenting content contribute to mass
collaboration or collective intelligence (Lévy, 1994) and for wisdom of crowds (Surowiecki, 2005). For
this to happen some principles must be implied (Tapscott & Williams, 2008):

• Openness - by opening door to external ideas and agents, schools will outperform those who keep
relying solely on their internal resources and capabilities;
• Peering - peer-to-peer collaboration, in some tasks, might be more productive and knowledge
generator than traditional hierarchical management;
• Sharing - schools have to share part of their intellectual property so they can actively collaborate
and generate new intellectual property plus improve their position in the global economy;
• Acting Globally - globalization is nowadays a key concept, schools must act globally and in
collaboration to stay at the top.
Tertiary education can have a significant gain and take benefits by integrating Web 2.0 and 3.0 tools into
their traditional structures and procedures. Being by nature, globalized and collaborative these tools can
benefit students and teachers when including online tools as a complement to face-to-face strategy.
Web 3.0 (or semantic Web) is related with immersive 3D virtual worlds where users connect,
communicate and interact in real-time through their avatars (Hayes, 2006). Users learn and share in an
immersive way - learning in 1st person as opposed to 3rd. Some authors (Downes, 2010; Kop, 2010;
Siemens, 2010; Wheeler, 2010) refer also to the eXtended Web (or Web x.0). Web x.0 seems to be
directly connected with collective intelligence and the wisdom of crowds allowing anyone to learn at
anytime and anyplace and in a personalized way. These new potentialities require the above mentioned
skills, specifically related with (Wheeler, 2011): (i) social networking; (ii) privacy maintenance and
identity management; (iii) creating, organising, reusing and repurposing content; (iv) filtering and
selecting information; and (v) self-broadcasting.
Therefore, and according with Morrison (2011), graduates must be able to: (i) Function in a global
economy for job success in the 21st century; (ii) Work effectively with people from different cultural
backgrounds; (iii) Work as a team member; (iv) Use information technology tools effectively; (v)
Function creatively and innovatively; (vi) Access, analyse, process, and communicate information; and
(vii) Engage in continuous, independent learning.
Virtual Learning Environments (VLE)
Most tertiary education institutions have implemented LMS (Learning Management System), CMS (Open
Source Course Management System) or VLE in order to better manage, organize and deliver learning
contexts. By their nature VLEs are formal and closed environments, confined to a class, a course or a
specific subject. Currently, the most popular VLE is Moodle (many times referred as LMS).
The focus of the Moodle project is always on giving educators the best tools to manage and
promote learning (but) it needs to be installed on a web server somewhere
(http://moodle.org/about).
Moodle is a space-based web application that integrates a set of features that allow you to create and
manage a space for students to access content provided by the teacher, and where there is a diversity of
interactions between the agents, synchronously and/or asynchronously. The main features of a VLE, in
particular Moodle, are gathered in four dimensions (Alves & Gomes, 2007):
• protected access and management of user profiles - thus creating a web environment reserved for
participants in a course and define the various permissions, at teachers and students level;
• managing access to content, allowing teacher to put content online in various formats and set the
times and ways how students can interact with them;

• tools for synchronous and asynchronous communication, enabling communication between
stakeholders;
• means to control activities, allowing the registration of all activities / actions made by students
and teachers.
VLEs facilitate student’s access to information teachers make available, allows contact with peers and
teachers through forums, chat rooms and message service. An additional modules makes it possible to do
live video conferences. One other advantage of a VLE is making courses available to students in remote
areas, or with scarce economic means. However, VLE visually have a static appearance, don’t allow
individual personalization and therefore it’s not very motivating to students, especially those whose only
contact with an institution is done through this virtual space.
Learning environments should encourage students to use meta-cognitive skills, reflect on relevant content
in order to create knowledge. Therefore, to become more appealing, a VLE should be designed to
address learners’ diversity in terms of learning styles, prior knowledge, culture, and self-
regulation skills (Vovides et al, 2007).
Since it is normal to be surrounded by all sorts of media and to use them simultaneously, a static place is
poorly motivating to today's’ students; and as they restricted environments, contributions and
collaboration are limited to those attending the course. This limitation drives teachers to search for other
more dynamic applications to complement the institutional VLE, like PLE. As Siemens (2012) refers
planned information structures (...) simply can’t adapt quickly enough to incorporate network-
speed information development. Instead of being the hub of the learning experiences, books,
courses, and classrooms become something more like a node in part of a much broader (often
global) network.
Personal learning Environment (PLE)
Besides VLEs, online learning can, nowadays, take advantage of other platforms and services available
on the Web. Some of them have become very popular lately amongst students (and teachers) - such as
social networks and virtual worlds. These virtual environments are open and visually more attractive -
since they are graphically based. Social networks appear to be emerging environments providing channels
of communication, sharing and distribution that enhance communication with e-learning students; these
are beginning to replacing or supplement traditional communication with VLE (such as Moodle),
ensuring the participation of the whole community.
With today´s networks, students have access to live conferencing, video sharing, social networking, and
collaborative tools - directly from their computers. Students can now create content, work collaboratively,
socialize, interact and communicate in a more direct way with their peers and teachers. Instead of merely
searching for information, applications such as bookmarking, RSS feeds, twitter and pinboards, digital
portfolios, etc., along with the possibility of creating their own personal website, today’s Web gives
students the chance of creating their own Personal Learning Environment (PLE). As Attwell (2007)
suggests, a PLE recognizes that learning is continuing and seeks to provide tools to support that
learning. In a PLE students are responsible for the management of their own learning environment and
for the selection of tools and contexts where learning will take place. According with Schaffert &
Hilzensauer (2008), learning with PLE implies certain changes, such as the role of the student as being
more proactive and self-organized in constructing and sharing his own knowledge, supported by data
retrieved from countless and varied information, made available by community peers; therefore social
involvement plays an important role, as the more social software tools multiply sources and connections,
therefore more information is attainable.

PLE are therefore environments undergoing continuing change, evolving not only with students’
knowledge interests, but also keeping up with all new applications that appear on web.
For some academics PLE is an environment which aggregates all used tools, such as email, websites and
applications; however, to a wider majority, a PLE is an environment containing social software
application as well as web services, where students are able to gather information and produce knowledge
and reflections. Furthermore, in such environment, students can make RSS feeds to follow the blogs and
webpages he finds interesting. According to Schaffert & Hilzensauer (2008) PLE can be seen as mash-up
in a single portal for the purpose of learning. (...) Examples for PLE applications are Netvibes15
or WordPressMU16 (a multi user Weblog), but also I-Google17 or Flock18 could serve as a
PLE. In short, a PLE is a set of Web 2.0 tools or services, gathered and chosen by the user, in a single
webpage - which allow to derive for different other websites.
VLEs & PLEs - benefits for e-learning contexts
An e-learning environment’s main goal is to convey knowledge to anyone who wants to learn, regardless
of where you are in the world. Most of the users look for e-knowledge due to geographical distance,
economic limitations or limited time schedules. However few tend to follow through the entire course.
Motivation is therefore one central topic when creating an environment for e-learning.
VLE are nowadays more evolved, and allow more connectivity, such as synchronous chat rooms and live
conferencing; however, connectivity in these spaces is always restricted to the ones who enrol in the
course. Teachers try to make the place more inviting, making available a wide range of activities in order
to motivate students for the course. In many situations they engage the help of tutors to deliver e-learning
support. Tutors can perform a major impact in closed learning environments (such as LMS and VLE).
They are responsible for course moderation, being a guide and a facilitator. Students can rely on tutors for
their immediate feedback (Loureiro, Costa, Oliveira & Barbas, 2011). Tutors help students’ socialization,
being a close peer in the learning process, maintaining class cohesion and high levels of motivation and
participation.
In a personal learning environment learning is focused in the self; different from learning in a VLE, with
only forums and text chat to communicate, and focused on a whole class or subject. With a PLE students
are independent of a closed environment, but in a space where one can still collaborate, share, learn and
search with a broader community, leading him to develop an attitude of independent learning.
Furthermore, personal networks appear to be emerging environments providing channels of
communication, sharing and distribution that enrich communication between e-learners. Students tend to
create their own personal networks, engaging in different services, communities, groups and networks,
according with their needs, interests, likes and motivations, looking for connections. This lead us into a
modern learning approach, Connectivism, described as the learning theory for the digital age. This
approach states that knowledge – and therefore the learning of knowledge – is distributive, that is,
not located in any given place (and therefore not ‘transferred’ or ‘transacted’ per se) but rather
consists of the network of connections formed from experience and interactions with knowing
community (Downes, 2009).
According to Siemens (2004), theories most often used to describe the learning process, like Behaviorism,
Cognitivism and Constructivism, do not take in account the way learning is impacted by technology, a
fact one cannot ignore in the digital age we now live into. Technology already has reorganized how we
live, how we communicate, and how we learn (Siemens, 2004), therefore, new age learning theories
should consider the widely influence of social environments have on learning (especially in its informal
and natural form), and reflect about the type of connections that the World Wide Web allows. As Vaill
said, referred by Siemens, learning must be a way of being – an ongoing set of attitudes and
actions by individuals and groups (Vaill, 1996), and so we must perceive the learning process which

transforms experience into knowledge, skills, behaviors, and attitudes" (Cobb, 2009). To learn is
to “acquire certain patterns (Downes, 2009).
The connections within a personalized environment shape the knowledge one creates, by collecting and
sharing information from varied sources, enriching the learners personal data collection, and contributing
to the evolution of the students’ learning profile from being a mere information gatherer to an active and
reactive user, developing and sharing content and information, influencing the build of knowledge of the
other users (Semantic Web). As social beings each one of us has an intrinsic need of being part a
community, of being known by our peers, an unfulfilled eagerness for communication, and to share our
ideas, needs and knowledge. We are now emerged in the real time, co-creative Web (Hayes, 2006).
Students are now content builders, information sharers, communicators, belonging to a common space
with no barriers, made of links, nodes and connections. Every day students establish new contacts,
increasing their networks, sharing and collecting new information, rebuilding knowledge, and therefore
learning (Loureiro & Bettencourt, 2010).
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
As digital technology continues to evolve, a wider range of technological solutions arise. Students are
able to engage in different structures, groups and communities, making their own connections and
creating their personal learning networks. As for the teacher, it is necessary to consider the students
learning profiles and adopt teaching and learning strategies, which not only considers these profiles, but
also equip students with the tools necessary to enter the today’s work world.
VLEs emerged before the onset of web technology and enabled institutions to provide a structured
environment for engaging students in a more flexible way than traditional (talk and chalk) methods, with
the disadvantage that the environment is limited to a course, class or subject.
PLEs don’t substitute learning management systems, as they are too unstructured from the learning
management point of view, they rather act as a complement. They enlarge students’ contact with valuable
information sources, allowing to share and construct knowledge while constantly reshaping and updating
it.
Figure 4. Learning Scenario
With the combination of VLE and PLE, the following learning scenario emerge (cf. Figure 4). A Teacher
initiates a learning task in the VLE which the student imports into his own PLE, the student can then
engage with his socially connected learning network to explore the topic then deliver the result of that
process back to the VLE on completion of the task. It is not the concern of the teacher what tools are used
to build the PLE, but only that the student engages with a wider network to enhance his own learning. In
terms of learning, we can say it starts in the formality of a classroom and follows in the informality of the
Web.
CONCLUSION
In an interconnected society access to information, content creation and knowledge sharing are at a
distance of a click. Access to learning contexts is equally easy. e-Learning is a reality for a foreseeable
future. Social Web and collaborative virtual environments are already making changes in the way
students learn. In fact, socialization is a key factor for collaborative and social learning - and that
means connecting, communicating, interacting and establishing relationships (Loureiro,
Bettencourt & Santos, 2011). To know how, where, when and with whom to socialize is becoming a vital
skill, as well as to know where, what and how to look for and share information. To do this students also
have to be in possess of digital skills, in order to face the networked society they live into. To be

connected, collaborative, have digital literacy and critical thinking is mandatory. Almost everything we
do nowadays requires computer mediation. Nevertheless, the ability for conflict resolution and
negotiation, to communicate and express ideas, for creative problem solving and strategic thinking are
also very important - interpersonal or soft skills (emotional intelligence). It is common to say that hard
skills will get you an interview but you need soft skills to get and keep the job (Smith, 2011). At
this moment, and due to society’s demands, the sentence can be rephrased into: hard skills will get you an
interview but you need e-skills and soft skills to get (and keep) the job. E-learning, through the use of
social web and collaborative virtual environments, can be used to develop and enhance these competences
on students, especially at tertiary education. Many learning contexts of role playing and simulation can be
created for students to experience a wide range of situations and therefore apply them to real life contexts.
REFERENCES
ACRL. (2010). Introduction to Information Literacy | Association of College & Research
Libraries (ACRL). Introduction to Information Literacy. Retrieved October 5, 2015, from
http://www.ala.org/acrl/issues/infolit/intro
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on Demand. Retrieved from
http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/learning_on_demand_sr2010
Alves, A. P., & Gomes, M. J. (2007). O ambiente Moodle no apoio a situações de formação não
presencial. In Challenges 2007 : actas da V Conferência Internacional de Tecnologias de
Informação e Comunicação na Educação (pp. 337–349). Braga.
Attwell, G. (2007). Personal Learning Environments - the future of eLearning? eLearning
Papers, 2(1). Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.97.3011&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Bettencourt, T. (2010). Second Life® - Uma nova forma de expressão de arte. In U. de Múrcia &
U. Aberta (Eds.), VI Seminário Imagens da Cultura / Cultura das Imagens. Porto: Universidade
Portucalense.
Carstens, A., & Beck, J. (2005). Get Ready for te Gamer Generation. TechTrends: Linking
Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 49(3), 22–25. Retrieved from
http://www.nslg.net/Get Ready For The Gamer Generation.pdf
Castells, M. (2005). The Network Society - A cross-cultural perspective. (M. Castells, Ed.) (Vol.
59). Massachussetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. doi:10.2307/778114
Cobb, J. (2009). Definition of Learning. Mission to Learn. Retrieved October 5, 2015, from
http://www.missiontolearn.com/2009/05/definition-of-learning/
COLARDYN, D., & BJORNAVOLD, J. (2004). Validation of Formal, Non-Formal and
Informal Learning: policy and practices in EU Member States. European Journal of Education,
39(1), 69–89. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.513.7835&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Cross, J. (2009). Informal Learning 2.0 | Internet Time Blog. INFORMAL LEARNING 2.0.
Retrieved October 5, 2015, from http://www.internettime.com/2009/08/informal-learning-2-0/
Downes, S. (2009). Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge. In Collective Intelligence
and E-Learning 2.0: Implications of Web-Based Communities and Networking.
doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-729-4.ch001

Fund, C. E. T. (2008). California ICT Digital Literacy Assessments and Curriculum Framework.
Retrieved from http://www.ictliteracy.info/rf.pdf/California ICT Assessments and Curriculum
Framework.pdf
Hayes, G. (2006). Virtual Worlds, Web 3.0 and Portable Profiles. PERSONALIZE MEDIA.
Retrieved October 5, 2015, from http://www.personalizemedia.com/virtual-worlds-web-30-and-
portable-profiles/
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. New York:
Vintage Books.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., Kampylis, P., Vuorikari, R., & Punie,
Y. (2014). Horizon Report Europe > 2014 Schools Edition. doi:10.2791/83258
Jones, C., & Shao, B. (2011). The Net Generation and Digital Natives: Implications for Higher
Education. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/learningandtech/next-
generation-and-digital-natives.pdf
Jones-Kavalier, B. R., & Flannigan, S. L. (2006). Connecting the Digital Dots: Literacy of the
21st Century. Educause Quarterly, 2, 8–10. Retrieved from
http://er.educause.edu/~/media/files/article-downloads/eqm0621.pdf
Jorgensen, B. (2003). Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y: Policy Implications for
Defence Forces in the Modern Era. Foresight, 5(4). doi:1463-6689
Kop, R. (2010). The eXtended Web and the Personal Learning Environment. Retrieved October
5, 2015, from http://ritakop.blogspot.pt/2010/07/extended-web-and-personal-learning.html
Lenhart, A., Rainie, L., & Lewis, O. (2001). Teenage life online: The rise of the instant-message
generation and the Internet’s impact on frienships and family relationships. Pew Internet &
American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-
media/Files/Reports/2001/PIP_Teens_Report.pdf.pdf
Lévy, P. (1997). Collective Intelligence. Cambrige, Massachusetts: Helix books; Perseus Books.
Retrieved from
https://is.cuni.cz/studium/predmety/index.php?do=download&did=29658&kod=JJM085
Loureiro, A., & Bettencourt, T. (2010). Immersive Environments - A Connectivist Approach. In
M. D. Lytras, P. Ordonez De Pablos, A. Ziderman, A. Roulstone, H. Maurer, & J. B. Imber
(Eds.), Knowledge Management, Information Systems, E-Learning, and Sustainability Research
(Vol. 111, pp. 202–2014). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-
642-16318-0
Loureiro, A., Costa, C., Oliveira, N., & Barbas, M. (2011). E-MODERATION IN VIRTUAL
ENVIRONMENTS - ENHANCING E-LEARNING CONTEXTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION.
ICERI2011 Proceedings, 3635–3643. Retrieved from
http://library.iated.org/view/LOUREIRO2011EMO
Loureiro, A., Santos, A., & Bettencourt, T. (2012). Virtual Worlds as an Extended Classroom. In
C. S. Lányi (Ed.), Applications of Virtual Reality (p. 89–). InTech. Retrieved from
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/36540.pdf
Martin, A., & Ashworth, S. (2004). Welcome to the Journal of eLiteracy! JeLit - Journal of
eLiteracy, 1, 2–6. Retrieved from http://www.jelit.org/11/01/JeLit_Editorial.pdf

McCormack, a. (2010). The e-Skills manifesto. A Call to Arms. Brussels, Belgium: European
Schoolnet. Retrieved from http://www.imasdtic.net/CLI_AETIC/ftpportalweb/documentos/e-
skills_manifesto.pdf
McCrindle, M. (2006). New Generations at Work: Attracting, Recruiting, Retraining & Training
Generation Y. McCrindle Research. Retrieved from
http://mccrindle.com.au/resources/whitepapers/McCrindle-Research_New-Generations-At-
Work-attracting-recruiting-retaining-training-generation-y.pdf
Morrison, J. (2011). The changing Landscape of American and Malaysian Higher Education.
Retrieved October 5, 2015, from http://horizon.unc.edu/projects/presentations/HiED in
transition.pdf
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0 - Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next
Generation of Software. O’REILLY. Retrieved October 5, 2015, from
http://www.im.ethz.ch/education/HS08/OReilly_What_is_Web2_0.pdf
Oblinger, D., Oblinger, J., Roberts, G., McNeely, B., Windham, C., Hartman, J., … Dede, C.
(2005). Educating the net generation: A Handbook of findings for practice and policy. (D.
Oblinger & J. Oblinger, Eds.). Educause. Retrieved from
http://www.netgen.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/handbook/NetGenHandbookAll.pdf
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital
Natives. New York: Basic Books. Retrieved from
http://pages.uoregon.edu/koopman/courses_readings/phil123-net/identity/palfrey-gasser_born-
digital.pdf
Prensky, M. (n.d.). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon (MCB University Press,
Vol. 9 No. 5). Retrieved April 12, 2014, from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky -
Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants - Part1.pdf
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II: Do They Really Think
Differently? On the Horizon, NCB University Press, 9(6). Retrieved from
http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky - Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants - Part2.pdf
Prensky, M. (2009). H.Sapiens Digital: From Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives to Digital
Wisdom. Innovate. Retrieved from http://stevekolb.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/digital-
wisdom.pdf
Prensky, M. (2012). From Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom. In From Digital Natives to Digital
Wisdom: Hopeful Essays for 21st Century Education. California: Corwin - A SAGE company.
Retrieved from http://marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-Intro_to_From_DN_to_DW.pdf
Rosen, L. D., Carrier, M. L., & Cheever, N. A. (2010). Rewired Understanding the iGeneration
and the Way They Learn. (L. D. Rosen, Ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from
http://english.360elib.com/datu/L/EM360415.pdf
Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, P., Fieldhouse, M., Gunter, B., … Tenopir,
C. (2008). The Google generation: the information behaviour of the researcher of the future.
Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 60(4), 290–310.
doi:10.1108/00012530810887953

Schaffert, S., & Hilzensauer, W. (2008). On the way towards Personal Learning Environments:
Seven crucial aspects. eLearning Papers, 9. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/In%C3%AAs/Downloads/media15971.pdf
Schulz, B. (2008). The Importance of Soft Skills: Education beyond academic knowledge. Nawa:
Journal of Language and Communication, 2(1), 146. Retrieved from
http://ir.polytechnic.edu.na/bitstream/handle/10628/39/The Importance of Soft Skills-Education
beyond academic
knowledge.pdf;jsessionid=6172232AD569855DEF076B9041170DC3?sequence=1
Siemens. (2012). Openness: Why learners should know about, and influence, how decisions are
made about their learning. Elearnspace. Retrieved October 23, 2012, from
http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/02/10/openness-why-learners-should-know-about-and-
influence-how-decisions-are-made-about-their-learning/
Siemens, G. (2004). elearnspace. Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age.
Elearnspace. Retrieved April 12, 2014, from
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Siemens, G. (2010). web 3.0/xWeb. Elearnspace. Retrieved October 5, 2015, from
http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2010/09/30/web-3-0xweb/
Smith, T. (2011). The Growing Importance of Soft Skills | Little Things Matter. Little Things
Matter. Retrieved October 5, 2015, from http://www.littlethingsmatter.com/blog/2011/02/08/the-
growing-importance-of-soft-skills/
Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069.
New York: William Morrow and Company.
Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (2003). Millennials Go to College: Strategies for a New Generation on
Campus (2nd ed.). New York: American Association of Collegiate Registrars.
Surowiecki, J. (2005). The Wisdom of Crowds. (First Anchor Books, Ed.). Retrieved from
https://gsappworkflow2010.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/wisdom-of-crowds_surowiecki-1.pdf
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing Up Digital by Don Tapscott. McGraw-Hill Inc.,US (1 Oct. 1997).
Retrieved from http://dontapscott.com/books/growing-digital/
Tapscott, D. (2009). Characteristics if a Generation: The Eight Net Gen Norms. In Grown Up
Digital: how the net Generation is changing your world (pp. 73–96). McGraw-Hill.
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008). Wikinomics - How Mass Collaboration Changes
Everything. New York, NY, USA: Penguin Group. Retrieved from
http://www.labeee.ufsc.br/~luis/egcec/livros/globaliz/Wikinomics.pdf
Thorpe, M. (2005). THE IMPACT OF ICT ON LIFELONG LEARNING. In C. McIntosh (Ed.),
PERSPECTIVES ON DISTANCE EDUCATION - Lifelong Learning & Distance Higher
Education (pp. 23–32). Commonwealth of Learning; Unesco. Retrieved from
http://portal.unesco.org/education/es/file_download.php/b261185b2d732746bc0615eb2b9fdfc6L
LL_DHE.pdf
Vaill, P. B. (1996). Learning as a Way of Being: Strategies for Survival in a World of Permanent
White Water. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/Learning-Way-Being-Strategies-
Permanent/dp/0787902462

Van Dorp, C. A., & Monteros, A. H. (2010). Challenges of Open and Distance Learning in the
Post-2010 Decade: Scenarios for Institutional Innovation. eLearning Papers, 18. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/Inês/Downloads/media21854 (1).pdf
Vovides, Y., Sanchez-Alonso, S., Mitropoulou, V., & Nickmans, G. (2007). The use of e-
learning Course Management Systems to support learning srategies and to improve self-
regulated learning. Elsevier: Educational Research Review, 2, 64–74. Retrieved from
http://www.cc.uah.es/ssalonso/papers/EducationalReviewDraft.pdf
Weiler, A. (2005). Information-Seeking Behavior in Generation Y Students: Motivation, Critical
Thinking, and Learning Theory. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(1), 46–53. Retrieved
from http://php.scripts.psu.edu/students/j/m/jmd394/saw4/infoseek/infoseekinggenx.pdf
Wheeler, S. (2010). Web 3.0: The Way Forward? Learning with “e”s - My thoughts about
learnig technology and all things digital. Retrieved October 5, 2015, from http://steve-
wheeler.blogspot.pt/2010/07/web-30-way-forward.html
Wheeler, S. (2011). The Future of Learning: Web 2.0 and the Smart eXtended Web. Retrieved
October 5, 2015, from http://www.slideshare.net/timbuckteeth/the-future-of-learning-6809148
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Digital literacy: is a group of competences that allows an individual to acquire knowledge
through digital processes.
Digital literate: does not refers only to the capability to use a computer or an email, but to the
capability to gather, understand, interpret and share information available in all digital media.
Being digital literate gives us the ability to communicate and work more efficiently, because it
involves understanding how all digital devices work and how they can be used to interact with
society.
Formal learning: occurs essentially when a student attends to class in a formal institution. And
is the one we use for most of our student life as it may confer a formal recognition in the form of
a certificate or diploma.
Informal learning: can be defined as a result of doing daily activities. It is not organised nor has
a formal recognition, for it can be made during daily tasks, such as observation, asking questions,
trial and error, and sometimes it can even be accidental.
Information literacy: comprehends knowledge of one's needs and problems with information,
and the ability to identify, locate, evaluate, organize and create, use and communicate effectively
the information to solve existing problems or issues.
Literacy: the ability to comprehend what we read, to give meaning, and to understand written
language. Not having any relation to the fact of one being educated or not.
Natural form of learning: the learning process is individual and occurs because the learner
wants to learn independently of the time/place they are in, at their own pace and in an

autonomous way; depends on the level of socialization an individual can carry out - more the
socialization more the person will learn.
Non-formal learning: can be referred as semi-organized and intentional, meaning it may or may
not have organised activities but that it has a learning objective.
Social skills: are the set of skills that allow students to communicate, relate and socialize with
others.
Soft skills: are personality traits, qualities and also social skills which every student possesses
although in varying degrees - it is related with emotional intelligence.