Internet and Higher Education 15 (2012) 3–8

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Internet and Higher Education

Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 25 June 2011 A Personal Learning Environment or PLE is a potentially promising pedagogical approach for both integrating
formal and informal learning using social media and supporting student self-regulated learning in
Keywords: higher education contexts. The purpose of this paper is to (a) review research that support this claim,
Social media (b) conceptualize the connection between PLE, social media, and self-regulated learning, and (c) provide a
Personal Learning Environment (PLE) three-level pedagogical framework for using social media to create PLEs that support student self-regulated
Self-regulated learning
learning. Implications for future research in this area are provided.
Web 2.0
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Learning on demand is becoming a type of lifestyle in modern describe a pedagogical framework that college instructors can use to
society (McLoughlin & Lee, 2007). Learners constantly seek informa- demonstrate to students how to use social media to create PLEs that
tion to address a problem at work, school, or to just satisfy a curiosity. support a learner-centered pedagogy and foster self-regulated
To do so, they take advantage of digital and networked technologies learning.
not only to seek information, but also to share information. Thus,
learners should not be considered as passive information consumers; 1. Social media use in higher education
rather, they are active co-producers of content. Additionally, learning
in the context of social media has become highly self-motivated, Social media is a 21st century term used to broadly define a variety
autonomous, and informal, as well as an integral part of the college of networked tools or technologies that emphasize the social aspects
experience (McGloughlin & Lee, 2010; Smith, Salaway, & Caruso, of the Internet as a channel for communication, collaboration, and
2009; Solomon & Schrum, 2007). However, higher education in- creative expression, and is often interchangeable with the terms Web
stitutions are still primarily relying on traditional platforms such as 2.0 and social software (Dabbagh & Reo, 2011a). Examples of social
course and learning management systems (CMS/LMS) that do not media include experience- and resource-sharing tools such as
capitalize on the pedagogical affordances of social media for example Delicious, WordPress, and Twitter that enable online/social book-
allowing learners to manage and maintain a learning space that marking, blogging, and microblogging; wiki software such as PBworks
facilitates their own learning activities and connections to peers and that enables the creation of collaborative workspaces; media sharing
social networks across time and place (McGloughlin & Lee, 2010; tools such as Flickr and YouTube that enable social tagging; social
Selwyn, 2007; Valjataga, Pata, & Tammets, 2011; van Harmelen, networking sites (SNS) such as Facebook and LinkedIn that enable
2006). The aim of this paper is to discuss how Personal Learning social networking; and web-based (cloud-computing) office tools
Environments or PLEs can serve as platforms for both integrating such as Google Apps that enable document and calendar sharing and
formal and informal learning and fostering self-regulated learning in editing among other things (Dabbagh & Reo, 2011b; Kitsantas &
higher education contexts. There is strong evidence that social media Dabbagh, 2010).
can facilitate the creation of PLEs that help learners aggregate and The 2010 ECAR (EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research) study of
share the results of learning achievements, participate in collective undergraduate students and information technology revealed that
knowledge generation, and manage their own meaning making. We students' use of social media has steadily increased from 2007 to 2010
begin by providing research that supports this claim. We then and that the gap between older and younger student use of social
media is shrinking (Smith & Caruso, 2010). More specifically, the 2010
ECAR study showed that 33.1% of the participant undergraduate
student sample (N = 36,950) reported using wikis; 29.4% used SNS;
⁎ Corresponding author.
24.3% used video-sharing websites; 17.4 used web-based calendars;
E-mail addresses: ndabbagh@gmu.edu (N. Dabbagh), akitsant@gmu.edu 11.6% used blogs; 4.3% used micro-blogs; and 2.8% used social
(A. Kitsantas). bookmarking tools. Additionally, the percentages of those using social

1096-7516/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002
4 N. Dabbagh, A. Kitsantas / Internet and Higher Education 15 (2012) 3–8

media for coursework related collaboration was particularly note- prompting them to select tools and resources to create, organize
worthy (30.7% of wiki use, 49.4% of SNS use, 33.4% of video-sharing and package learning content to learn effectively and efficiently.
use, 37.6% of blog use, 40.2% of micro-blog use, and 30.5% of social Rubin adds that PLEs are inherently self-directed placing the
bookmarking use). These data reveal that college students are responsibility for organizing learning on the individual. These
integrating social media in their academic experience both formally definitions and conceptual descriptions imply that PLEs can be
and informally. Furthermore, college faculty is increasingly using perceived as both a technology and a pedagogical approach that is
social media to support teaching and learning activities (EDUCAUSE student-designed around each student's goals or a learning approach
Learning Initiative, 2007, 2007). For example, some are encouraging “chosen by a student to match his or her personal learning style and
students to use blogging platforms (e.g., WordPress) for the pace” (Johnson et al., 2011, p. 8).
development of e-portfolios which have become an important In the e-learning domain, PLEs are becoming increasingly effective
authentic assessment tool in higher education (Rosen & Nelson, in addressing issues of learner control and personalization that are
2008). Others are using Twitter (a micro-blogging platform) to often absent in institutional LMS. Although LMS were initially
stimulate student engagement in the classroom (Rankin, 2009) and designed to provide a flexible framework for advanced learning
wiki software (e.g., PBworks) to engage students in collaborative pedagogies, research has progressively shown that LMS emphasize
projects that support the creation, editing, and management of faculty dissemination tools over student learning tools even though
content (Hazari, North, & Moreland, 2009). the latter is more likely to promote student engagement and
These efforts by faculty and students are creating new ways of interaction (Harasim, 1999; Harvey & Lee, 2001; Hedberg & Harper,
teaching and learning leading to the emergence of constructs such as 1998; Marra & Jonassen, 2001; Oliver, 2001). LMS have always been
e-learning 2.0, pedagogy 2.0, student 2.0, faculty 2.0, and classroom under the control of the institution, its faculty and administrators,
2.0, with the suffix 2.0 characterizing themes such as openness, leaving little room for learners to manage and maintain a learning
personalization, collaboration, social networking, social presence, space that facilitates their own learning activities as well as
user-generated content, the people's Web, and collective wisdom, and connections to peers and social networks across time and place
demarcating areas of higher education where a potentially significant (Valjataga et al., 2011; van Harmelen, 2006). In the physical world,
transformation of practice is underway (Alexander, 2006; Dabbagh & learners typically rely on lunchtime discussions, student organiza-
Reo, 2011b; Jones, 2008; Lindstrom, 2007; Norton & Hathaway, 2008; tions, brown bag sessions and study groups for peer support and
O'Reilly, 2005; Sessums, 2006). For example, Hilton (2009) believes informal learning networks (Martindale & Dowdy, 2010). Web 2.0
that higher education is being challenged by perceptions that Web 2.0 technologies are now affording similar opportunities through social
technologies (social media in particular) are empowering students to media. Consequently, PLEs can be perceived as a manifestation of a
take charge of their own learning resulting in what some interpret to learner's informal learning processes via the Web, or, as a single
mean that there is no arbiter of their knowledge, work, publication, or learner's e-learning platform allowing collaboration with other
thinking. Others (e.g., Anderson, 2008; Cormier, 2008; Dede, 2006; learners and instructors and coordination of such connections across
Katz, 2008; Siemens, 2005; Siemens & Tittenberger, 2009; Weigel, a wide range of systems (Martindale & Dowdy, 2010; van Harmelen,
2002) argue that Web 2.0 technologies are inducing a pedagogical 2006).
transformation where the community is the curriculum rather than While there is growing evidence that social media is increasingly
the path to understanding or accessing the curriculum and that higher supporting informal learning at home and in the community and that
education institutions should integrate social media platforms that informal learning is becoming a vital element of education for learners
enable the creation of personal and social learning spaces to support of all ages (Selwyn, 2007), research has also revealed that PLEs can
more learner-centered “personalized” education systems (Dabbagh & help integrate formal and informal learning in higher education
Reo, 2011b; Dron, 2007; McGloughlin & Lee, 2010; Selwyn, 2007). As a contexts (McGloughlin & Lee, 2010). Formal learning is described as
result of these social media induced pedagogical challenges and learning that is institutionally sponsored or highly structured, i.e.,
practices, the concept of Personal Learning Environments or PLEs is learning that happens in courses, classrooms, and schools, resulting in
listed in the 2011 Horizon Report as an emerging technology that is learners receiving grades, degrees, diplomas, and certificates, whereas
likely to have a large impact on teaching and learning within informal learning is learning that rests primarily in the hands of the
education around the globe and a time-to-adoption of four to five learner and happens through observation, trial and error, asking for
years (Johnson, Adams, & Haywood, 2011). We discuss this emerging help, conversing with others, listening to stories, reflecting on a day's
technology and its potential as a pedagogical or educational approach events, or stimulated by general interests (Cross, 2007; Selwyn,
for integrating formal and informal learning in higher education 2007). Attwell (2007) reported that in the workplace, informal
contexts using social media. learning through asking questions, observing coworkers, and other
uncoordinated and independent learning activities accounts for 80%
2. Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) and social media of an individual's knowledge about this/her job. However, Cross
considers formal and informal learning “ranges along a continuum of
A PLE is a new construct in the e-learning literature that is learning” (p. 16) rather than either–or dichotomies. Moreover, Hall
premised on social media and steadily gaining ground in the e- (2009) suggests that formal and informal learning should be
learning field as an effective platform for student learning. Martindale connected to optimize learning and that learning is most effective
and Dowdy (2010) posit that PLEs are an outcome of the tools that when the learner engages in both formal and informal learning
social media has provided learners enabling them to create, organize, activities. Attwell (2007) suggests that PLEs can be perceived as
and share content. PLEs are built on externally hosted (in-the-cloud) individuals organizing their own learning in multiple contexts where
Web 2.0 tools and services designed to help students aggregate and informal learning can be used to supplement formal learning and
share resources, participate in collective knowledge generation, and added that PLEs play an important role in advancing the understand-
manage their own meaning making (Dabbagh & Reo, 2011b; Dron, ing of e-learning. While Web 2.0 technologies seem to be scaling up
2007). The EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI) (2009) “seven things students' informal learning, PLEs can be considered as a promising
you should know about” series defines PLEs as the “tools, communi- pedagogical approach for the deliberate or intentional integration of
ties, and services that constitute the individual educational platforms formal and informal learning spaces.
that learners use to direct their own learning and pursue educational Specifically, a PLE consists of social media tools that allow students
goals” (p. 1). Rubin (2010) and McGloughlin and Lee (2010) posit that to gain competence or knowledge regardless of whether the tool
PLEs empower students to take charge of their own learning enables interaction with another student about a class project or
 N. Dabbagh, A. Kitsantas / Internet and Higher Education 15 (2012) 3–8 5

going online to find examples or suggestions on how to approach a inquiry and placed increasing emphasis on the importance of group
project. A key feature of a PLE is that the learner develops an online self-regulation.
identity where the personalized learning environment provides cues In a study conducted by Valjataga et al. (2011), college students'
(affordances or possibilities for action) that prompt the learner about perceptions of the pedagogical affordances of social media in
what to share, what not to share, who they choose to share with, and supporting the development of PLEs were examined in order to
how to effectively merge formal and informal learning. Several evaluate a course design that was premised on social media. Students
researchers have examined how students use social media for formal were given the freedom to select social media tools to create personal
and informal learning. We describe such studies next. and distributed learning spaces (PLEs and DLEs) to facilitate
Clark, Logan, Luckin, Mee, and Oliver (2009) investigated how individual and collaborative learning tasks in an educational technol-
adolescent students perceived and used Web 2.0 technologies (social ogy course. Affordances were defined in this study as cues for action or
media) both in formal and informal learning contexts. Students were action potentials that are evoked by multiple technologies in the
asked what types of Web 2.0 technologies they used and why, and learning environment and changed dynamically based on students'
completed a learning map where they were instructed to visually map learning goals, tasks, and interaction with other students and course
out the different technologies they used and for what purpose. The facilitators. For example the affordance evoked by the use of social
results showed that while students tended to use more Web 2.0 bookmarking tools like Delicious would differ based on whether one
technologies during their free time than in school, they did use Web or multiple students used it and what it was used for. Findings showed
2.0 technologies for school purposes. However, the most common that students' perceptions of the affordances of PLEs and DLEs
technology used was email to transfer files and seek help from dynamically changed as they navigated the course landscape of social
teachers or peers. This result shows that students are not fully taking media tools to construct and perform learning activities aligning with
advantage of the benefits that Web 2.0 technologies have to offer for the researchers' operational definition of affordances of social media.
formal learning. The authors conclude that in order for students to use This led the researchers to recommend that (a) students should be
Web 2.0 technologies as formal learning tools they need training. encouraged to develop skills and confidence in the selection,
Similarly, Cigognini, Pettenati, and Edirisingha (2011) reported that application, and use of social media tools for personalized learning
learners need support, guidance, and pedagogical interventions to and that (b) new pedagogical models and approaches are needed to
make the best possible use of social media to support their learning enhance students' abilities to organize and customize their own
goals. learning environments and advance their self-direction and self-
While most learning experiences are a blend of both formal and awareness in a PLE.
informal learning, social media is also inherently enabling informal Overall, the research suggests that social media are being
learning experiences in higher education. For example, the results of a increasingly used as tools for developing formal and informal learning
study (Harrison, 2011) that examined whether college student spaces or experiences that start out as an individual learning platform
participation in a blog helped reinforce classroom learning by or PLE, enabling individual knowledge management and construction,
extending communication outside class hours revealed that students and evolve into a social learning platform or system where knowledge
perceived the use of blogs as an outlet for thinking about class topics is socially mediated (Dabbagh & Reo, 2011a; Johnson et al., 2011;
beyond the weekly class meetings both individually and in collabo- McGloughlin & Lee, 2010; Minocha & Kerawalla, 2011). The research
ration with peers through blog commentaries. The results revealed also suggests that social media use in higher education is enabling the
that blogging helped students direct their own learning, increased creation of PLEs that empower students with a sense of personal
engagement in course material, and promoted the development of agency in the learning process. However, in order to successfully
informal learning communities. Correspondingly, a study conducted leverage social media towards the creation of PLEs, students must
with college students by Churchill (2009) revealed that a blog-based acquire and apply a set of personal knowledge management (PKM)
environment can help foster a learning community in which learners skills, defined as “the act of managing one's personal knowledge
feel they are an important part of the classroom and that their needs through technologies” (p. 127), ranging from creating, organizing and
and opinions matter. Findings also showed that blogs are most sharing digital content and information, to higher order or more
effective when they are designed to facilitate student access of course complex PKM skills such as connectedness, the ability to balance
material, posting reflections on artifacts created through the learning formal and informal contexts, critical ability, and creativity (Cigognini
tasks, and commenting on peer contributions. et al., 2011).
Furthermore, Ebner, Lienhardt, Rohs, and Meyer (2010) examined Specifically, PLEs require the development and application of self-
whether the use of microblogs facilitated process-oriented learning regulated learning skills because PLEs are built bottom-up starting
and subsequently informal learning in higher education. The re- with personal goals, information management, and individual
searchers tracked college students' use of microblogs throughout an knowledge construction, and progressing to socially mediated
entire course and analyzed them in order to explore their pedagogical knowledge and networked learning (Dabbagh & Reo, 2011a; Turker
affordances. The results revealed that students used microblogging for & Zingel, 2008). Kitsantas and Dabbagh (2010) suggest that social
private informal communication as well as for more formal project- media have pedagogical affordances that can help support and
oriented communication to support social interaction in group work. promote student self-regulated learning by enabling the creation of
Informal communication facilitated through microblogging was also PLEs and that the relationship between PLEs and self-regulated
an important factor in encouraging students to adopt more formal learning is interdependent and synergistic requiring the simulta-
uses of microblogging. neous, progressive, and transformative development and application
Hemmi, Bayne, and Landt (2009) examined the use of social media of self-regulated learning skills using social media. We discuss this
in three courses across two semesters: two on-campus undergraduate relationship next.
courses and one online postgraduate course using a variety of social
media tools. One undergraduate course used a visually rich wiki to 3. Self regulated learning and Personal Learning Environments
support teaching and learning, the other used blogs to increase (PLEs)
participation in classroom discussions, and the postgraduate course
used a range of social media technologies including Facebook, Self-regulated learning is defined as a student's ability to
Delicious, blogs, wikis, and Second Life (a virtual world) to support independently and proactively engage in self-motivating and behav-
a variety of learning activities. The results revealed that social media ioral processes that increase goal attainment (Zimmerman, 2000).
engendered a pedagogical shift towards more collaborative modes of More specifically, self-regulated learning can be regarded as a skill,
6 N. Dabbagh, A. Kitsantas / Internet and Higher Education 15 (2012) 3–8

where students must know how to set goals, what is needed to 4. A framework for using social media to support Self-Regulated
achieve those goals, and how to actually attain these goals. Therefore, Learning (SRL) in Personal Learning Environments (PLEs)
in order for students to self-regulate and direct their own behaviors,
they must also be motivated or driven to attain goals (Kitsantas & To assist higher education faculty and instructors in scaffolding
Dabbagh, 2010). The motivational components of self-regulated student self-regulation skills in the creation of PLEs we developed a
learning help students persist in the face of difficult tasks and resist pedagogical framework for social media use based on the levels of
other sometimes more tempting options. interactivity that social media tools enable. These levels are: (1)
Zimmerman (2000) conceptualized self-regulated learning as a personal information management, (2) social interaction and collab-
three phase cyclic model that attempts to explain why and how oration, and (3) information aggregation and management (Dabbagh
students achieve academically. The first phase is called the fore- & Reo, 2011a; Kitsantas & Dabbagh, 2010). Dabbagh and Reo used
thought phase. In this phase, prior to actually engaging in the learning Gibson's (1977) theory of affordances to argue that social media
task, students have a predefined set of cognitions (e.g., goal setting possess features that users can activate “to enable the degree of
and planning) and self beliefs (e.g., task interest, self-efficacy) that interaction and sharing desired and/or required for learning” (p. 13).
will impact how they will approach the task. For example, a student The goal of this framework is to inform college faculty and instructors
who reports low self-efficacy beliefs in math and feels that math is not how to engage students in a transformative cycle of creating PLEs that
important to him/her will be less likely to excel in a mathematics support self-regulated learning. In doing so, PLEs can become effective
course or have the persistence or effort to continue trying. In the pedagogical tools that influence students' cognitive processes in
second phase, the performance phase, the student begins to actually addition to serving as vehicles for informal learning (Turker & Zingel,
engage in the behaviors required to successfully achieve his or her 2008).
goals. Specifically, students monitor their learning progress and use Specifically, at level 1 of the pedagogical framework, instructors
selected strategies to perform learning tasks. During the last phase of should encourage students to use social media such as blogs and
the model, the self-reflection phase, students use self-monitored wikis to create a PLE that enables them to engage in self-regulated
outcomes to make judgments regarding their learning performance. learning processes of Zimmerman's forethought phase such as goal
Depending on the nature of the outcomes and the attributions setting and planning. The goal at this level is to guide students to
students make, these self-evaluative judgments may affect future create a personal or private learning space by self-generating
course of actions related to the first phase of the model; the content and managing this content for personal productivity or
forethought phase. Self-regulated learners engage in a cyclic feedback organizational e-learning tasks such as creating online bookmarks,
loop until they successfully achieve their goals. media resources, and personal journals and calendars (Kitsantas &
Several studies have used Zimmernan's three phase model to Dabbagh, 2010).
support self-regulation in online and blended learning environ- At level 2, social interaction and collaboration, instructors
ments (Kitsantas & Dabbagh, 2010); however very few researchers should encourage students to use social media to engage in basic
have examined the relationship between self-regulation, social sharing and collaborative activities. For example students can
presence, and personal agency which is fundamental to PLEs enable the blog's comment feature allowing instructor and peer
(Turker & Zingel, 2008). Cho, Demei, and Laffey (2010) examined feedback or create a collaborative workspace using a wiki. At this
the extent to which college student engagement in self-regulated level of the framework, students are using social media to foster
learning behaviors contributed to perceptions of peer and instructor informal learning communities surrounding the course topics
presence in an online learning environment where courses were thereby extending the PLE from a personal learning space to a
delivered totally online using a learning management system. social learning space. These social and collaborative activities
Specifically, perceptions of peer and instructor presence were engage students in the self-regulation processes of self-monitoring
conceptualized as students' ability to “project oneself to others and help seeking prompting students to identify strategies needed
emotionally and socially” (p. 299) and perceptions of social to perform more formal learning tasks. This level of social media
presence were conceptualized as students' feelings of belonging- use in a PLE aligns with the performance phase of Zimmerman's
ness within a community. Students completed questionnaires model (Kitsantas & Dabbagh, 2010).
regarding their self-regulation and perceptions of peer and At level 3 of the pedagogical framework, information aggrega-
community presence. The results revealed that self-regulation tion and management, instructors encourage students to use social
predicted peer social presence, instructor social presence, sense of media to synthesize and aggregate information from level 1 and
connectedness, and sense of learning. level 2 in order to reflect on their overall learning experience.
Furthermore, Turker and Zingel (2008) emphasized the connec- These social media activities allow students to take greater control
tion between personal agency, self-regulated learning, and social of their PLE, customizing it and personalizing it around their
media, and argued that “organizing learning resources available at a learning goals. This level of social media use in a PLE aligns with
PLE into meaningful learning activities towards achieving set goals the final phase of Zimmerman's model, self-reflection, because it
can as well be considered as an act of instructional design” (p. 4), engages students in the self-regulation process of self-evaluation.
and that this “act” corresponds to the forethought phase of This evaluation or self-reflection is then used by the student to
Zimmerman's three phase cyclic SRL model. Schmidt (2007) influence the forethought phase of subsequent efforts, leading the
suggested that social media facilitate three social cognitive student to make adjustments to the PLE created in level 1 of the
processes: information management, identity management, and framework and individualize it by design. Table 1 provides
relationship management. These processes result in a change of self- examples of how instructors can guide students' use of social
representation based on psychological needs such as competence media at each level of the framework.
(perceived self-efficacy), relatedness (sense of being a part of the The three levels of the pedagogical framework of social media
activity) and acceptance (social approval) which are acts of self- use and the three phases of Zimmerman's model are interrelated
regulated learning (Turker & Zingel, 2008). Kitsantas and Dabbagh in a self-oriented system of reflective feedback to support and
(2010) went further in conceptualizing the connection between promote self-regulated learning in the creation of PLEs. Ultimately,
SRL, PLEs, and social media, and developed a pedagogical framework a self-regulated learner continues to adjust his or her strategies
for social media use that aligns with the three phases of using social media tools across the three levels of the framework
Zimmerman's model. We describe this framework and its applica- in order to optimize the PLE and to effectively direct aspects of the
tion next. learning experience toward a desired outcome.
 N. Dabbagh, A. Kitsantas / Internet and Higher Education 15 (2012) 3–8 7

Table 1
A framework for using social media to support self-regulated learning in Personal Learning Environments (PLEs).

(Level 1) Personal information management → (Level 2) Social interaction and collaboration → (Level 3) Information aggregation
and management →

Blogs Instructor encourages students to use a blog Instructor encourages students to enable the blog Instructor demonstrates how to configure a
as a private journal to set learning goals and comment feature to allow for instructor and peer blog to pull in additional content and how to add
plan for course assignments and tasks feedback enabling basic interaction and sharing the blog to RSS aggregation services
Wikis Instructor encourages students to use a wiki Instructor encourages students to enable the wiki's Instructor demonstrates how to view a wiki's
as a personal space for content organization collaborative editing and commenting features for history to promote student self-evaluation of
and management feedback their learning across time
Google Calendar Instructor encourages students to use Google Instructor encourages students to enable the calendar Instructor demonstrates how to archive personal
Calendar for personal planning sharing features to allow feedback and collaboration and group calendars to promote student self-
to complete course tasks valuation regarding time planning and
management
YouTube or Instructor encourages students to use Flickr Instructor encourages students to enable the sharing Instructor demonstrates how to aggregate
Flickr or YouTube to set up a personal media archive feature of the media archive and join similar media media from several media archives to refine
related to course content archives created by peers their personal archive
Social Instructor encourages students to create an Instructor encourages students to connect to online Instructor asks students to engage in self-
networking academic and career profile on LinkedIn communities related to their professional goals reflection with the goal to restructure their
sites profile and social presence
Social Instructor encourages students to use a social Instructor encourages students to collaborate with Instructor asks students to self-reflect on their
Bookmarking bookmarking tool (e.g., Delicious) to organize other classmates and create a shared list of personal and group bookmarks to enhance the
course content bookmarks related to a specific learning desired learning outcome
topic or project

5. Conclusion (Eds.), Web 2.0-based e-learning: Applying social informatics for tertiary teaching
(pp. 109–127). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Clark, W., Logan, K., Luckin, R., Mee, A., & Oliver, M. (2009). Beyond Web 2.0: Mapping
A PLE can be entirely controlled or adapted by a student according the technology landscapes of young learners. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
to his or her formal and informal learning needs, however not all 25(1), 56–69.
students possess the knowledge management and the self-regulatory Cormier, D. (2008). Rhizomatic education: Community as curriculum. Innovate, 4(5)
http://innovateonline.info/pdf/vol4_issue5/Rhizomatic_Education-
skills to effectively use social media in order to customize a PLE to __Community_as_Curriculum.pdf Retrieved July 2, 2008, from
provide the learning experience they desire. Teaching students to Cross, J. (2007). Informal learning: Rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire
become effective self-regulated learners may help them acquire basic innovation and performance. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Dabbagh, N., & Reo, R. (2011a). Back to the future: Tracing the roots and learning
and complex personal knowledge management skills that are essential affordances of social software. In M. J. W. Lee, & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Web 2.0-based
for creating, managing, and sustaining PLEs using a variety of social e-learning: Applying social informatics for tertiary teaching (pp. 1–20). Hershey, PA:
media. This paper provided a review of the research that supports this IGI Global.
Dabbagh, N., & Reo, R. (2011b). Impact of Web 2.0 on higher education. In D. W. Surry, T.
claim and presented a three level pedagogical framework that college Stefurak, & R. Gray (Eds.), Technology integration in higher education: Social and
faculty and instructors can use to scaffold student self-regulated organizational aspects (pp. 174–187). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
learning using PLEs. Although this three level framework has not been Dede, C. (2006). Online professional development for teachers: Emerging models and
methods (ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
tested empirically, it is postulated that as students engage in a self-
Dron, J. (2007). Control and constraint in e-learning: Choosing when to choose. Hershey,
oriented system of feedback with the help of the instructor and their PA: Idea Group.
peers, they become motivated and empowered to create effective and Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M., & Meyer, I. (2010). Microblogs in higher education —
A change to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning? Computers in
sustainable PLEs to achieve desired learning outcomes and enrich their
Education, 55(1), 92–100.
learning experiences. Research studies should be designed to trace EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI) (2007). The seven things you should know about.
students' trajectories (paths) of social media use across the levels of Retrieved January 15, 2008, from. http://www.educause.edu/7Things
the framework with the goal of documenting how students transition EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI) (2009). The seven things you should know about …
Personal Learning Environments. Available from. http://net.educause.edu/ir/
through the levels and examining the degree to which self-regulated library/pdf/ELI7049.pdf
learning strategies (e.g., goal setting, time management, self-moni- Hall, R. (2009). Towards a fusion of formal and informal learning environments: The
toring, and self-evaluation) influence the design and advancement of impact of the read/write web. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 7(1), 29–40.
Harasim, L. (1999). A framework for online learning: The Virtual-U. Computer, 44–49.
their PLE. Such studies would also need to consider students' Harrison, D. (2011). Can blogging make a difference?. : Campus Technology http://
motivational beliefs such as self-efficacy beliefs as well as learning campustechnology.com/articles/2011/01/12/can-blogging-make-a-difference.
styles since PLEs are individualized by design and will differ from aspx Available from
Harvey, D. M., & Lee, J. (2001). The impact of inherent instructional design in online
student to student. Results of such studies would inform higher courseware. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(1), 35–48.
education faculty whether PLEs can be used as an effective pedagogical Hazari, S., North, A., & Moreland, D. (2009). Investigating pedagogical value of wiki
and educational tool. technology. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 187–198.
Hedberg, J., & Harper, B. (1998). Visual metaphors and authoring. : ITFORUM http://it.
coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper25/paper25.html Available from
References Hemmi, A., Bayne, S., & Landt, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social
technologies in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 19–30.
Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Hilton, J. (2009). Essential versus strategic IT investments. EDUCAUSE Review, 8–9
EDUCAUSE Review, 41, 32–44. July/August.
Anderson, T. (2008). The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.). . Edmonton, Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Haywood, K. (2011). The NMC horizon report: 2011 K-12
AB: Athabasca University (AU) Press. edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortiumhttp://www.nmc.org/pdf/2011-
Attwell, G. (2007). The personal learning environments: The future of eLearning? Horizon-Report-K12.pdf Available from
eLearning Papers, 2(1), 1–8. Jones, B. L. (2008). Web 2.0 heroes: Interviews with 20 Web 2.0 influencers.
Cho, M., Demei, S., & Laffey, J. (2010). Relationships between self-regulation and social Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.
experiences in asynchronous online learning environments. Journal of Interactive Katz, R. (2008). The gathering cloud: Is this the end of the middle? In R. Katz (Ed.),
Learning Research, 21(3), 297–316. The tower and the cloud: Higher education in the age of cloud computing
Churchill, D. (2009). Educational applications of Web 2.0: Using blogs to support (pp. 2–42). http://educause.edu/books Available from EDUCAUSE
teaching and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 179–183. Kitsantas, A., & Dabbagh, N. (2010). Learning to learn with Integrative Learning
Cigognini, M. E., Pettenati, M. C., & Edirisingha, P. (2011). Personal knowledge Technologies (ILT): A practical guide for academic success. Greenwich, CT:
management skills in Web 2.0-based learning. In M. J. W. Lee, & C. McLoughlin Information Age Publishing.
8 N. Dabbagh, A. Kitsantas / Internet and Higher Education 15 (2012) 3–8

Lindstrom, P. (2007). Securing “Web 2.0” technologies. In-depth research report, Selwyn, N. (2007). Web 2.0 applications as alternative environments for informal
the Burton Group. : EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR http://www. learning — A critical review. OECD CERIKERIS International expert meeting on ICT and
educause.edu/ecar Retrieved February 3, 2008, from educational performance. Cheju Island, South Korea: Organization for Economic Co-
Marra, R. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (2001). Limitations of online courses for supporting Operation and Development.
constructive learning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(4), Sessums, C. (2006, January 21). Notes on the significance of the emergence of blogs and
303–317. wikis. Available from. http://eduspaces.net/csessums/weblog/6172.html
Martindale, T., & Dowdy, M. (2010). Personal learning environments. In G. Veletsianos Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International
(Ed.), Emerging technologies in distance education (pp. 177–193). Edmonton, AB: Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1) http://www.itdl.org/
Athabasca University Press. Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm Available from
McGloughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). Personalised and self regulated learning in the Siemens, G., & Tittenberger, P. (2009). Handbook of emerging technologies for learning.
Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Retrieved from. http://umanitoba.ca/learning_technologies/cetl/HETL.pdf
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 28–43. Smith, S. D., & Caruso, J. B. (2010). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Listen and learn: A systematic review of the information technology, 2010. : EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR
evidence that podcasting supports learning in higher education. In C. Montgomerie, http://www.educause.edu/ecar Available from
& J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Smith, S. D., Salaway, G., & Caruso, J. B. (2009). The ECAR study of undergraduate students
Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 1669–1677). Chesapeake, VA: AAC. and information technology, 2009. : EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research (ECAR)
Minocha, S., & Kerawalla, L. (2011). University students' self-motivated blogging and http://www.educause.edu/ecar Available from
development of study skills and research skills. In M. J. W. Lee, & C. McLoughlin Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Washington DC:
(Eds.), Web 2.0-based e-Learning: Applying social informatics for tertiary teaching International Society for Technology in Education.
(pp. 149–179). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Turker, M. A., & Zingel, S. (2008). Formative interfaces for scaffolding self-regulated
Norton, P., & Hathaway, D. (2008). On its way to K-12 classrooms, web 2.0 goes to learning in PLEs. eLearning Papers, 9 http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/
graduate school. Computers in the Schools, 25, 163–180. media15975.pdf Available from
O'Reilly, T. (2005, October 10). Web 2.0: Compact definition? : O'Reilly Radar http:// Valjataga, T., Pata, K., & Tammets, K. (2011). Considering students' perspective on
radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/10/web_20_compact_definition.html Available personal and distributed learning environments. In M. J. W. Lee, & C. McLoughlin
from (Eds.), Web 2.0-based e-Learning: Applying social informatics for tertiary teaching
Oliver, K. (2001). Recommendations for student tools in online course management (pp. 85–107). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
systems. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 13(1), 47–70. van Harmelen, M. (2006). Personal learning environments. In R. Kinshuk, P. Koper, P.
Rankin, M. (2009). Some general comments on the “Twitter Experiment”. Available Kommers, D. Kirschner, W. Didderen, & Sampson (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth
from. http://www.utdallas.edu/~mar046000/usweb/twitterconclusions.htm International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 815–816). Los
Rosen, D., & Nelson, C. (2008). Web 2.0: A new generation of learners and education. Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
Computers in the Schools, 25, 211–225. Weigel, V. (2002). Deep learning for a digital age: Technology's untapped potential to
Rubin, N. (2010). Creating a user-centric learning environment with Campus Pack enrich higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
personal learning spaces. : PLS Webinar, Learning Objects Community http:// Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attainment of self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective.
community.learningobjects.com/Users/Nancy.Rubin/Creating_a_User- In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Self-regulation: Theory, research,
Centric_Learning Available from and applications (pp. 13–39). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Schmidt, J. (2007). Social software: Facilitating information-, identity- and relationship
management. In T. N. Burg, & J. Schmidt (Eds.), BlogTalks reloaded: Social software
research & cases (pp. 31–49). Norderstedt, Germany: Books on Demand.