skip to main content
10.1145/3486011.3486506acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesteemConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Digital Skills for Building and Using Personal Learning Environments

Published:20 December 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

In the competitive worldwide reality, there is a need for lifelong learning. People need to continuously learn new knowledge, acquire new skills, and adapt to new situations. PLEs could support this continuous learning necessity. However, the learner should have specific digital skills for PLE development and management. This paper addresses these needed digital skills. Initially, the paper introduces a PLE model to present how the learner uses applications to access and manage resources in order to develop his/her PLE. Then, it describes the stages that the learner follows in order to collect, manage, develop, and share resources as well as communicate and collaborate with others in his/her PLE. Finally, the paper presents the digital skills needed by the learner in order to develop and manage a PLE.

References

  1. G. Attwell. 2007. Personal learning environments –the future of eLearning? eLearning Papers, 2(1).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. G. Attwell. 2010. Context and the design of Personal Learning Environments. Presented at the PLE2010 Conference, Barcelona, Spain. Retrieved from http://www.pontydysgu.org/2010/07/context-and-the-design-of-personal-learningenvironments/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. P. Biel, E. Pérez, C. Rodrigo and A. Serrano. 2016. Use of Symbaloo Edu for improving information management processes in work by modules. Journal of Cases on Information Technology (JCIT), 18(4), 22-35.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. R.T. Kompen, P. Edirisingha, X. Canaleta, M. Alsina and J.M. Monguet. 2019. Personal learning environments based on Web 2.0 services in higher education. Telematics and Informatics, 38, 194–206.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. U.P. Muthupoltotage and L. Gardner. 2018b. Analysing the relationships between digital literacy and self-regulated learning of undergraduates— A preliminary investigation. In Advances in information systems development (pp. 1-16). Springer, Cham.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. S. Wilson. 2008. Patterns of personal learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 16(1), 17-34.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. N. Dabbagh and L. Castaneda. 2020. The PLE as a framework for developing agency in lifelong learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 3041-3055. doi: 10.1007/s11423-020-09831-zGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. C. Rus-Casas, M. Rubia, D. Eliche-Quesada, G. Jiménez-Castillo and J.D. Aguilar-Peña. 2021. Online tools for the creation of personal learning environments in engineering studies for sustainable learning. Sustainability, 13(3), 1179. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031179Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. U.P. Muthupoltotage and L. Gardner. 2018a. Longitudinal analysis of reciprocal relationships between digital literacy and self-regulated learning within personal learning environments. In PACIS 2018 Proceedings. 157. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2018/157Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. E. Vázquez-Cano, E. Martín-Monje and M.D. Castrillo de Larreta-Azelain. 2016. Analysis of PLEs' implementation under OER design as a productive teaching-learning strategy in higher education. A case study at Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia. Digital Education Review, 29, 62-85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. M.P.P. Espinosa, L. Castañeda, I. Gutiérrez and M. del Mar Román. 2016. Still far from personal learning: Key aspects and emergent topics about how future professionals PLEs are. Digital Education Review, 29, 15–30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. M.U. Perera, L. Gardner and A. Peiris. 2016. Investigating the interrelationship between undergraduates’ digital literacy and self-regulated learning skills. In Thirty Seventh International Conference on Information Systems, Dublin 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. J. Lim and T.J. Newby. 2020. Preservice teachers’ Web 2.0 experiences and perceptions on Web 2.0 as a personal learning environment. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32(2), 234–260. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12528-019-09227-w.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. G. Tur, V.I. Marín, J. Moreno, A. Gallardo and S. Urbina. 2016. From diagrams to self-regulated learning: Student teachers’ reflections on the construction of their PLE. Educational Media International, 53(2), 139–152. doi:10.1080/09523987.2016.1211335Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. A.M. Korhonen, S. Ruhalahti and M. Veermans. 2019. The online learning process and scaffolding in student teachers' personal learning environments. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 755– 779.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. C. Patterson, M. Stephens, V. Chiang, A.M. Price, F. Work and E. Snelgrove-Clarke. 2017. The significance of personal learning environments (PLEs) in nursing education: Extending current conceptualizations. Nurse Education Today, 48, 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.09.010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. CETIS. 2006. The personal learning environments reference model project. JISC CETIS Wiki. Retrieved from http://wiki.cetis.ac.uk/PleGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. S. Barrio-García, J.L. Arquero and E. Romero-Frías. 2015. Personal learning environments acceptance model: The role of need for cognition, e-learning satisfaction and students. Perceptions. Educational Technology and Society, 18(3), 129–141.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. N. Dabbagh and H. Fake. 2017. College students’ perceptions of personal learning environments through the lens of digital tools, processes and spaces. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 6(1), 28–36. doi:10.7821/naer.2017.1.215Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. J. Lim and T.J. Newby. 2021. Preservice teachers’ attitudes toward Web 2.0 personal learning environments (PLEs): Considering the impact of self-regulation and digital literacy. Education and Information Technologies, 1-22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. U. Muthupoltotage and L.A. Gardner. 2018c. Rules governing the use of Personal Learning Environments for self-regulated learning: An activity theory approach. In Twenty-Sixth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2018), Portsmouth, UK, 2018. Research-in-Progress Papers. 20. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2018_rip/20Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. E. Rahimi, J. van den Berg and W. Veen. 2015. Facilitating student-driven constructing of learning environments using Web 2.0 personal learning environments. Computers and Education, 81, 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. ACARA. 2018. NAP sample assessment ICT literacy, Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-documentlibrary/2017napictlreport_final.pdf?sfvrsn=2Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. ACRL. 2016. Framework for information literacy for higher education, Association of College and Research Libraries. Retrieved from: http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/infolit/framework1.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. ALA. 1989. Evaluating information: Information literacy, American Library Association. Retrieved from https://libguides.ala.org/InformationEvaluation/InfolitGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. All Aboard! 2015. Towards a national digital skills framework for Irish higher education. Retrieved from https://www.teachingandlearning.ie/wpcontent/uploads/NF-2016-Towards-a-National-Digital-Skills-Framework-for-Irish-Higher-Education.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. S. Carretero, R. Vuorikari and Y. Punie. 2017. DigComp 2.1: The digital competence framework for citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use, Joint Research Centre, 2017. DOI:10.2760/38842Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. CILIP. 2004. Definition of information literacy, Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. Retrieved from: http://www.cilip.org.uk/cilip/advocacy-campaigns-awards/advocacy-campaigns/informationliteracy/information-literacyGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. A. Ferrari. 2012. Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks, Joint Research Centre. Retrieved from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC68116.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. J. Fraillon, J. Ainley, W. Schulz, D. Duckworth and T. Friedman. 2019. IEA international computer and information literacy study 2018 assessment framework. Retrieved from https://www.iea.nl/sites/default/files/2019-05/IEA%20ICILS%202018%20Assessment%20Framework-Final.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. NAMLE. 2019. Media literacy defined, National Association for Media Literacy Education. Retrieved from https://namle.net/publications/media-literacydefinitions/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. W. Ng. 2012. Can We Teach Digital Natives Digital Literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), pp. 1065–1078.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. UNESCO. 2013. Global media and information literacy assessment framework: Country readiness and competencies, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from: http://www.karsenti.ca/archives/UNE2013_01_MIL_FullLayout_FINAL.PDFGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. UNESCO. 2018. A global framework of reference on digital literacy skills for indicator 4.4.2, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265403Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. UK. 2019. National standards for essential digital skills, UK Department of Education, Crown. Retrieved from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/796596/National_standards_for_essential_digital_skills.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Morgan, D. L. 1996. Focus groups as qualitative research (Vol. 16). Sage publicationsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Odimegwu, C. O. 2000. Methodological issues in the use of focus group discussion as a data collection tool. Journal of social sciences, 4(2-3), 207-212Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Moore, T., McKee, K., & McCoughlin, P. 2015. Online focus groups and qualitative research in the social sciences: their merits and limitations in a study of housing and youth. People, Place and Policy Onlin, 9(1), 17-28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Digital Skills for Building and Using Personal Learning Environments
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          TEEM'21: Ninth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM'21)
          October 2021
          823 pages
          ISBN:9781450390668
          DOI:10.1145/3486011
          • Editors:
          • Marc Alier,
          • David Fonseca

          Copyright © 2021 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 20 December 2021

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate496of705submissions,70%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format