solved: Copyright ©2001. All Rights Reserved. Copyright ©2001. All Rights Reserved. Copyright ©20

l Victoria Marín, Francisca Negre & Adolfina Pérez
Palma de Mallorca (Spain)

Construction of the Foundations of the
PLE and PLN for Collaborative Learning

Entornos y redes personales de aprendizaje (PLE-PLN) para
el aprendizaje colaborativo

v Victoria I. Marín-Juarros is Associate Lecturer in the Applied Pedagogy and Educational Psychology Department
at the Universitat de les Illes Balears (Spain) ([email protected]).

v Dr. Francisca Negre-Bennasar is Collaborating Lecturer in the Applied Pedagogy and Educational
Psychology Department at the Universitat de les Illes Balears (Spain) ([email protected]).

v Dr. Adolfina Pérez-Garcias is University Lecturer in the Applied Pedagogy and Educational Psychology
Department at the Universitat de les Illes Balears (Spain) ([email protected]).

D O S S I E R

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C42-2014-03

Comunicar, n. 42, v. XXI, 2014, Media Education Research Journal; ISSN: 1134-3478; pages 35-43

www.revistacomunicar.com

ABSTRACT
In this article we approach the topic of collaborative learning by means of the creation and maintenance of personal
learning environments and networks (PLE and PLN) and their integration within institutional virtual learning envi-
ronments (VLE) as strategies to enhance and foster collaborative learning. We take an educational point of view:
the student learns independently and carries out activities in groups to achieve common goals. Our aim is to experi-
ment with didactical methodologies of integration between the institutional VLE and PLE, and to analyze the uni-
versity students’ construction of PLE. Due to its importance in facilitating and fostering collaborative learning, special
emphasis is placed on the construction of the personal learning network. We performed a design-based research on
an academic course for Primary teachers. The results show that the students construct their PLE and PLN using
newly acquired knowledge and that an appropriate methodological integration takes place between these environ-
ments and the institutional VLE for integrated learning. As conclusion, we propose an integrative methodological
model for collaborative learning as a good practice.

RESUMEN
El aprendizaje colaborativo se puede afrontar desde diferentes estrategias. En este artículo contemplamos la creación
y mantenimiento de entornos y redes personales de aprendizaje (PLEs y PLNs) y su integración en entornos virtuales
institucionales de aprendizaje (EVEA) como estrategias que facilitan y promueven el aprendizaje colaborativo, siem-
pre desde una visión educativa en la que el alumno es autónomo en su propio aprendizaje y trabaja para el logro de
metas comunes mediante la realización de actividades de forma conjunta en grupos, existiendo interdependencias
positivas. Los objetivos de este trabajo son experimentar con metodologías didácticas de integración del EVEA y los
PLEs, y analizar la construcción del PLE por parte de los alumnos universitarios, haciendo especial énfasis en la
construcción de la red personal de aprendizaje. Para ello se empleó una metodología de diseño y desarrollo, en una
asignatura universitaria de los estudios de maestro de Primaria. Los resultados de la experiencia apuntan a que los
alumnos construyen sus PLEs y PLNs en base a sus nuevos conocimientos adquiridos y se produce una adecuada
integración metodológica entre esos entornos y el EVEA para el aprendizaje integrado. Como conclusión propone-
mos un modelo de organización metodológica de integración para el aprendizaje colaborativo a modo de buena
práctica.

KEYWORDS / DESCRIPTORES
Personal learning environments, personal learning, collaborative learning, higher education, blended learning, open
learning, teaching innovation, Twitter.
Entornos personales de aprendizaje, redes personales, aprendizaje colaborativo, educación superior, aprendizaje
mezclado, aprendizaje abierto, innovación educativa, Twitter.

Received: 09-05-2013 / Reviewed: 10-06-2013
Accepted: 01-08-2013 / Preprint: 15-11-2013

Published: 01-01-2014 / RECYT Code: 21543

1. Introduction
The university of the future should be an institu-

tion that provides education to a greater part of the
population throughout their lives and which generates
knowledge that is of service to educational needs
(Salinas, 2012). This has led to the setting-up of
various learning scenarios that are currently being tried
and researched.

These learning scenarios are being developed wi –
thin the concept of Personal Learning Environments
(PLE) and open learning environments (Brown, 2010;
Hannafin, Land & Oliver, 1999; Sclater, 2008). The
concept of PLE is defined, from a pedagogical point of
view, as the set of tools, materials and human resour-
ces that a person is aware of and uses for life-long lear-
ning (Adell & Castañeda, 2010; Attwell, 2007;
Hilzensauer & Schaffert, 2008). The functions of the
PLE that we took into account in this work, as indica-
ted by Wheeler (2009) are: information management
(related to personal knowledge management), creation
of content and connections with others (which is
known as the personal learning or knowledge net-
work).

PLE involve a change in education in favour of
student-centred learning by overcoming the limitations
of virtual learning/teaching environments (VLE) based
on learning management systems (LMS). PLE, there-
fore, enable students to take control and manage their
own learning, taking into account decisions on their
personal learning goals, management of their own
learning (content and process management), commu-
nication with others in the learning process and every –
thing else that contributes to achieving their goals
(Salinas, 2013).

We started on the basis of the theory known as
LaaN, Learning as a Network, which includes various
concepts and theories, such as connectivism (learning
as a connection), the complexity theory (understan-
ding the dynamics and uncertainty of knowledge in
current society), the concept of double loop learning
(learning about errors and research) and, in particular,
knowledge environments (Chatti, Schroeder & Jarke,
2013; Chatti 2013), considering that «learning is the
continuous creation of a personal knowledge net-
work» (Adell & Castañeda, 2013:38).

This Personal Learning Network (PLN or PKN)
consists of the sum of connections with other people’s
PLE (their tools and strategies for reading, reflection
and relationships), that make up knowledge environ-
ments (Chatti et al., 2012) and whose interaction pro-
duces the development and enabling of strategies for
the actual PLE and, therefore, are central to learning

and professional development (Couros, 2010; Dow –
nes, 2010; Sloep & Berlanga, 2011). The idea of the
PLN is that each person contributes their know ledge
so that what is most important is not what each person
has in their PLE, but the sharing of those resources.
The LaaN theory is «an attempt to draw up a theore-
tical foundation for learning and teaching which will
start up the construction and enrichment of the actual
PLE» (Adell & Castañeda, 2013: 38).

In addition, PLE can also be used as bases for
constructive learning (Adell & Castañeda, 2013),
given that they are able to comply with the five fea –
tures for activities leading to significant learning propo-
sed by Jonassen et al. (2003), they are active, cons-
tructive, intentional, authentic and collaborative. A
collaborative environment (CSCL, Computer Suppor –
ted Collaborative Learning) is based on group work
that begins with interaction and collaboration (John –
son & Johnson, 1996; Lipponen, 2002), provides
commu nication tools and makes human resources
from various fields available (teachers, experts, collea-
gues, etc.). Collaboration as a learning strategy is
based on working in heterogeneous groups of people
with similar knowledge levels to achieve communal
goals and carry out tasks together, with there being a
positive interdependence between them (Dillenbourg,
1999; Prendes, 2007). There is no single correct ans-
wer in collaborative tasks. Instead, there are several
ways of arriving at the result and, to achieve this, stu-
dents must share and reach agreements, an event that
helps them to be socially and intellectually more self-
sufficient and mature (Bruffee, 1995).

This study is framed within a wider research pro-
ject that seeks to define and test various didactic strate-
gies for the integration of PLE and VLE taking into
account different learning environments (formal, infor-
mal and casual) on the basis of previous works (Marín,
2013; Marín & Salinas, in press; Marín, Salinas & de
Benito, 2012, 2013; Salinas, Marín & Escandell, in
press).

In this article, on the basis of these ideas, we pre-
sent an experiment in which methodologies that seek
to encourage collaboration and integration of these
environments within the university (PLE and PLN on
the one hand, and VLE on the other) are put into
practice, as well as some of the results observed during
the process.

2. Methodology for the study
The study was carried out on a group of teachers

and students on the course «Technological media and
resources for primary education» in the third year of

C
om

un
ic

ar
, 4

2,
X

X
I,

20
14

studies for the Primary Teacher’s Degree at the
University of the Balearic Islands. The material is
worth 6 ECTS points and the intention is to develop
skills in the use of technology that will enable teaching
and learning processes at school.

The course group was made up of three teachers
and 192 students organised into three large groups of
approximately 70 and ten practical groups of approxi-
mately 25.

All the students had prior knowledge of technolo-
gical tools given that they had studied a course relating
to education technology during the first year
(Information and Communication Technologies
applied to Primary Education).

According to an initial questionnaire, answered by
179 students, it can be seen that the majority are
women (71%), are under 24 years old (70%) and are
frequent users of social networks (mainly Facebook),
generic search engines (Google) and video web sites
(Youtube). This creates an internet user profile that is
basically that of a consumer – they consume informa-
tion and communicate with their friends but hardly
ever produce content.

The development of the course was based on
learning principles centred on student and methodolo-
gies focusing on collaboration and social construction
of knowledge (Salinas, Pérez & de Benito, 2008). It
was structured around the following activities, relating
to the development of the student’s PLE, according to
the basic functions indicated by Wheeler (2009): a)
development of a
design and develop-
ment-based work
group project; b) crea-
tion of personal lear-
ning networks; and c)
use of appropriate
internet technology to
locate and manage
information, create
content and share
knowledge. In addi-
tion, a methodological
strategy was organised
that would allow inte-
gration of the use of
the PLE into the VLE,
in which the VLE
offers access to basic
documentation on the
course and large group
or private communica-

tion spaces and the development of the PLE enables
development of information management processes
and participation in external learning networks.

The elements of the strategy shown in figure 1,
based on course tasks and some features of collabora-
tive learning are set out below.

• Access course study guides. Content is presented
structured into concept maps that represent and inter-
connect basic concepts and provide supplementary
resources (reading, videos, examples, etc). Hints are
given for development of the work project and practical
activities. These materials are provided by the teachers
and are available on the Moodle-based VLE.

• Locate, access and organise supplementary
materials using generic search engines (eg, Google),
social bookmarking (eg, delicious), specific search
engines (eg, Google Scholar), content recovery (eg,
materials published/shared on Twitter by one person
or another). Students are encouraged to find useful
information to carry out course activities and organise
information organisation systems.

• Personally organise and manage information
(using personal organisation tools, RSS subscription to
blogs/web sites, following in Twitter, use of Symba –
looEDU to organise new information). Further more,
within the framework of the course, the student is
offered shared resources and links (paper.li).

Activities related to creating content:
• Organise the PLE itself using SymbalooEDU, in

which each student organises the tools and resources

C
om

un
ic

ar
, 4

2,
X

X
I,

20
14

Figure 1. Methodological strategy for integration of the VLE and PLE into the course.

C
om

un
ic

ar
, 4

2,
X

X
I,

20
14

that they use to carry out the course tasks and other
environments.

• Create a personal blog that gives an account of
the learning activities carried out during the course.
Entries include materials developed by students in dif-
ferent formats (text, audio, video, texting, interactive
multimedia, etc) and reflections on teaching practice.

• Develop and publish a collaborative group pro-
ject that requires the creation of didactic materials for
primary education (interactive multimedia, video and
WebQuest). This project follows the features of
colla borative learning according to Johnson, Johnson
& Holubec (1999) – existence of positive interdepen-
dence, individual and group responsibility, stimulating
interaction, availability of the necessary personal and
group attitudes and abilities, and group assessment.
The project is delivered through the VLE.

Finally, in relation to connection with others, the
following activities are included:

• Interaction and collaboration with others
through the VLE in relation to the activities proposed
in forums (debates) or via private messaging to the tea-
cher or other students. These activities are in line with
the features indicated by Onrubia (1997) for collabo-
rative learning – they are group tasks, require contribu-
tion by everyone and have sufficient resources to be
completed.

• Share and circulate the results of activities using
the personal blog and sending messages on Twitter,
using the hashtags set up for the course (chat on
Twitter), to other people and/or colleagues to circula-
te their work on the blog and share interesting resour-
ces, encouraging interaction, participation and com-
munication (Ingram & Hathorn, 2004).

• Communicate and collaborate on educational
virtual communities and social networks or others of
interest (outside the course hashtag on Twitter).

• Widen their personal learning network (PLN)
by following people of interest, on Twitter as well as
other social networks or virtual communities or via
RSS subscriptions, with teachers, experts and people
related to field of interest, etc.

2.1. Tools for information collection
The tools for information collection are qualitative

as well as quantitative with the aim of enabling inter-
pretation and relevance of the information.

The tools are as follows:
• Analysis of documents relating to integration of

the PLE elements. These documents are amongst
those produced by the students during the course. On
the one hand, group projects and personal blog

entries, and on the other, the evolution of the PLE’s
construction, represented graphically by screen shots
of their SymbalooEDU.

• Observation of the student’s reaction in relation
to implementation of didactic integration with respect
to the personal learning network. This is done by carry –
ing out a non-exhaustive descriptive and quantitative
analysis of interactions on Twitter. The number of
log-ons, comments between students, following peo-
ple inside and outside the course, interactions aimed at
sharing resources and activities, etc, are taken into
account. A descriptive observation of the dynamic of
the PLN in the blogs is also reviewed.

2.2. Study stages
The experience is carried out in four stages, fo –

llowing the methodology of design and development
(Reeves, 2000; 2006; Van-den-Akker, 1999):

• Stage 1. Analysis of the situation and definition
of the problem. Precedent research on techno-educa-
tional integration of PLE and VLE is reviewed. This is
defined as the need to improve and optimise teaching/ –
learning processes with the aim of integrating all fields
of learning and centre on strategies that focus on the
student’s learning.

• Stage 2. Development of solutions. Together
with the teacher in charge of the course, a methodo-
logical strategy for didactic integration of the PLE and
VLE is designed, which has previously been des –
cribed. The elements of the strategy that are the least
known are worked on with the teachers.

• Stage 3. Implementation and assessment. This
stage puts into practice the strategy designed for the
course, while at the same time the process is followed
up and changes for iterative improvement are made to
the strategy (eg, technical difficulties in the use of
paper.li and Twitter meant proposing the use of other
tools). At the start of the course a PLE workshop is
held with students and they are asked to put the Sym –
ba looEDU screen shots representing their PLE on
their blogs at the start and end of the course. Perio –
dically, entries on personal blogs are collected and
SymbalooEDU screen shots on the blogs are saved
after following RSS. A content analysis is made of the
screen shots by counting the number of blocks inclu-
ded and according to type in accordance with the
three PLE functions. A descriptive analysis is made on
the selection and inclusion of tools from the group pro-
jects, included in the VLE, and blog entries.

Furthermore, tweets made with the course’s hash-
tag are also collected using an automatic tweet collec-
tor system (Rowfeeder). Afterwards, a content analysis

C
om

un
ic

ar
, 4

2,
X

X
I,

20
14

is carried out using the tweet count and they are coded
according to type. Later interaction on the blog of the
people identified as most active on Twitter is exa –
mined, reviewing the comments on their blogs.

• Stage 4. Document production and design prin-
ciples. Assessment of the strategy using the data collec-
ted leads to the proposal for a didactic integration
model for the student’s PLE and the VLE.

3. Results
3.1. PLE construction

With respect to students’ evolution in the PLE, the
following table shows the main statistics to be taken
into account for SymbalooEDU screen shots and the
level of participation at the start and end of the course.

The image given by this count gives us an idea
about the type of tools used by the students at the
beginning and end of the course on their PLE, whe –
ther they used them, or considered them interesting for
use now or in the not too distant
future.

The evolution of the percentage
number of blocks per resource type is
shown below.

In spite of the fact that the evolu-
tion of the number of blocks per type
of tool does not undergo serious chan-
ges (the most significant is the increase
from 20% to 28% in blocks referring to
content generation tools), a significant
increase in the number of resources
included at the start (101) and end
(144) taking into account the various
types can be seen.

Looking at each type, as more spe-
cific statistics, notable differences can
be seen between the tools and links

used at the start and finish of the course,
in spite of the fact that some remain
the same.

With respect to information
management resources, a highlight is
the use of tools relating to locating
relevant information for developing

the course project, such as news links (many of which
were related to the application of technology in edu-
cation), learning banks (eg, educational activities) and
search engines. We can see an increase in the first
two. Some students included SymbalooEDU on their
home pages as tools for personal organisation. This is
interesting because information organisation and
management is one of the PLE’s aims.

The greatest increase is seen in content generation
tools. Given that the course mainly worked on educa-
tional content generation for primary education, many
students included applications in their PLE that they
considered useful for that purpose. Among the blocks
included, highlights were collaborative creation and
interactive exercise creation tools, blogs, web site crea-

tion, audio, image creation, walls, comics
and videos. A wide variety of tools can be
seen within each category, although the
most frequently used are small in number.

At the start of the course, the most
frequently used content generation tools
were blogs (Blogger) and collaborative

work tools (Google Drive). At the end of the course,
these tools were still commonly used as they continue
to be used during the course and were found to be
useful, but there is also evidence of an increase in
other content generation tools, as indicated above.

Figure 2. Percentage amount of information management resource blocks at the start
and end of the course.

Finally, social networks and asynchronous com-
munication tools stand out in relation to communica-
ting with others. An increase in the tools needed to
share course activities on the blog can be seen (eg,
tools for sharing files, videos, visual presentations, text
documents, etc.). It can also be seen that in the cate-
gory of generic social networks, compared to the start,
there was a majority inclusion of the students’ PLE on
Twitter.

3.2. Development of the PLN
Regarding the development of the personal lear-

ning network, the use of Twitter by students was
mainly taken into account. A total of 1986 tweets using
the hashtags set up were counted, without taking into
account repeats. In total, 189 of the students in the
three groups took part, 47 of whom
already had an account on that social
network.

The average number of tweets
per person was 10.51 (the minimum
was 1 and the maximum 112), the
trend was 10 and the density was
low (0.11), as the greater number of
interactions came from just a few
authors. These were those con –
figured as «group leaders». These
people were significant as they acted
as the catalyst for the group on the
social network and encouraged parti-
cipation by other colleagues. The
1986 tweets were divided up accor-
ding to their use. The results can be
seen below:

• 1451 tweets (73%) shared the
results of course activities with other
the other students, as was indicated
in the initial instructions for the cour-
se.

• 190 tweets (10%) shared re –
sources of interest to the rest of the
course group. This content was rela-
ted to that being worked on in class.
37 of these 190 tweets produced
interaction with people outside the
course (teachers, educational organi-
sations, etc) by retweets or citations.

• 182 tweets (9%) were informal
communications, with these consi –
dered to be messages to the whole
group (greetings) and comments or
dialogue with other students about

the course (asking for help, questions, etc.).
• 163 tweets (8%) were recorded relating to in –

teraction between students: retweets to colleagues or
comments on jointly written blog entries, the group
project, etc.

In addition, the number of followers and followed
was reviewed. It turned out that the average number
of followers for each student was 38.38 and followed,
61.39. Regarding those followed, out of the 189 stu-
dents who took part on Twitter with their group’s
hashtag for the course, 82 started to follow people/ –
organisations outside the course. Therefore, in many
cases, students enriched their use of the social network
by going further than the formal environment, and par-
ticularly into the informal.

Based on the percentage of non-obligatory partici-

40
C

om
un

ic
ar

, 4
2,

X
X

I,
20

Figure 3. Percentage amount of blocks content generation tools at the start and
end of the course.

Figure 4. Percentage amount of blocks of interconnection tools at the start and end of
the course.

pation (interactions not directed at sharing the blog)
(average: 2.83), those taking part with more than 5
tweets were taken into account. Those who went
over this number were discounted if their interactions
were the type citing joint work in blog entries (tweets
not aimed at boosting the social space). In this way, a
total of 13 people were counted, 9 students from the
first group, 2 from the second group and 1 from the
third group.

In addition, the dynamic of each group on Twitter
was different. The active students in the first group,
and to a lesser extent in the third group, aimed to share
resources and comment on them, while the second
group was more of an informal help space. In this
case, it was seen that the students’ PLN was created
around the blogs, as one of them acted as mentor and
the others followed and were supported by the men-
tor’s explanations. On the other hand, no significant
interaction was noticed between the groups.

4. Discussion and conclusions
Throughout the course the VLE was the bridge

between the student’s PLE and the educational institu-
tion. It was used, above all, as an initial portal although
almost all the learning process was developed using
external elements that made up or became part of the
student’s PLE (blogs, Twitter, etc). In addition, the
VLE was didactically integrated into the student’s PLE
naturally.

Furthermore, the evolution in the student’s cons-
truction of the PLE and PLN was confirmed. They
developed procedures based on locating and mana-
ging information that would be useful for solving pro-
blems, creating content and communicating with the
others. During this process well-known tools were
used and new ones were continuously selected. Tools
used in other environments were integrated and the
spaces created within the framework of the course
were extrapolated to other contexts.

During this evolution in management of the actual
learning process, the students experienced the passage
from being passive consumers of information and
resources to being creators of content and materials in
a variety of formats (Hilzensauer & Schaffert, 2008).
This variety responds to the methodological strategy
for the course that promotes content creation while at
the same time giving independence so that it is the stu-
dent –or group– who chooses the tools that are the
most appropriate for the needs of the activity and its
features.

Furthermore, foundations have been laid for the
creation of personal learning networks in as much as

the students have learned to take part in social net-
works, organise a social learning network, and partici-
pate in a sharing culture. Nevertheless, it is still neces-
sary to overcome some challenges such as the level of
participation and the degree of involvement in order to
develop a truly collaborative process based on interac-
tion and communication (Kirschner, 2002). What has
been seen were various types of networks but con –
fined to the group for the course with occasional exter-
nal, support-based interaction, distribution of filtered
resources and redistribution of contributions, whether
their own or from others.

The impact of the experience on students’ lear-
ning arising from implementing the strategy was asses-
sed as positive, as it promotes the student’s indepen-
dence while learning, as well as collaborative know-
ledge construction based on the development of the
group project and networks constructed around the
course. These learning networks have huge potential
that should be valued as a strategy for methodological
change towards meaningful ways of learning based on
problem solving or project development.

This experience enabled the development and
evaluation of social knowledge construction processes,
encouraging the student: a) to search for information,
identify problems, acquire filtering criteria, intercon-
nect and locate relevant data and distribute useful
information; b) acknowledge and express their perso-
nal viewpoint (ideas and progress); and c) share this
with the group and be able to change their point of
view, adopt new perspectives, clarify points of disa-
greement, debate, negotiate agreements (Bruffee,
1995) and, finally, formulate and present knowledge
(Stahl, 2000). Therefore, we propose a methodologi-
cal organisation model as good practice for collabora-
tive learning, with a suggested tool for each element in
brackets.

The PLE, as the central element, includes the spa-
ces and processes marked out for its uses (Wheeler,

C
om

un
ic

ar
, 4

2,
X

X
I,

20
14

Figure 5. Percentage of tweets according to use.

2009): content cre-
ation, whether indi-
vidual (e-portfolio,
tool selection) or
group (using colla-
borative work and
c o m m u n i c a t i o n
tools), information
management (indi-
vidual and collabo-
rative selection and
re commen da tion of
re sources) and con-
nection with others
(using an open
space for social
communication and
co lla boration to cre-
ate learning com-
munities for colla-
borative know ledge
construction).

Compared to the initial model, the proposed chan-
ges to tools with respect to the technical difficulties
with Twitter and paper.li are included: introduction of
content aggregation systems (Scoop.it, Twubs) for
better information and PLN management and the
tools that are the subject of this course (generation of
educational materials for primary education).

Acknowledgments
This work is framed within the research project EDU2011-25499
«Methodological strategies for integrating institutional virtual envi-
ronments, personal and social learning», developed by the
Educational Technology Group (GTE) of the University of the
Balearic Islands since 2012 and funded by the Ministry of Education
and Science of Spain, within the National Programme for
Fundamental Research.

References
ADELL, J. & CASTAÑEDA, L. (2010). Los Entornos Personales de
Aprendizaje (PLEs): una nueva manera de entender el aprendizaje.
In R. ROIG VILA & M. FIORUCCI (Eds.), Claves para la investigación
en innovación y calidad educativas. La integración de las tecnolo-
gías de la información y la comunicación y la interculturalidad en
las aulas. (pp. 19-30). Alcoy: Marfil / Roma TRE Università degli
Studi. (http://hdl.handle.net/10201/17247) (10-05-2013).
ADELL, J. & CASTAÑEDA, L. (2013). El ecosistema pedagógico de
los PLEs. In L. CASTAÑEDA & J. ADELL (Eds.), Entornos Personales
de Aprendizaje: Claves para el ecosistema educativo en Red. (pp.
29-51). Alcoy: Marfil. (http://digitum.um.es/xmlui/bitstream/ 10201/ –
30409/1/capitulo2.pdf) (10-07-2013).
ATTWELL, G. (2007). Personal learning environments – the future of
eLearning? In eLearning Papers, 2 (1), 1-8. (www.elearning eu ro –
pa. info/files/media/media11561.pdf) (10-05-2013).
BROWN, S. (2010). From VLEs to learning webs: the implications of

Web 2.0 for learning and teaching. Interactive Learning Envi ro n –
ments, 18 (1), 1-10. (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 104948 20 8 –
02158983).
BRUFFEE, K. (1995). Sharing our toys – Cooperative learning versus
collaborative learning. Change, 27 ≠(1), 12-18. (DOI: http://dx.doi. –
org/ 10.1080/00091383.1995.9937722).
CHATTI, M.A. (2013). The LaaN Theory. In S. DOWNES, G. SIE –
MENS & R. KOP (Eds.), Personal learning environments, networks,
and knowledge. (www.elearn.rwth-aachen.de/dl1151|Mo ha –
med_ Chatti_LaaN_preprint.pdf) (07-05-2013).
CHATTI, M.A., SCHROEDER, U. & JARKE, M. (2012). LaaN: Con ver –
gence of Knowledge Management and Technology-enhanced
Learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 5 (2), 177-189.
(DOI: http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/ 10.1109/TLT. 20 11. 33).
COUROS, A. (2010). Developing Personal Learning Networks for
Open and Social Learning. In G. VELETSIANOS (Ed.), Emerging
Tech nologies in Distance Education. (pp. 109-128). Canada: AU
Press, Athabasca University.
DILLENBOURG, P. (1999). Collaborative Learning Cognitive and
computational Approaches Advances in learning and instructional
series. Oxford (UK): Pierre Pergamon.
DOWNES, S. (2010). Learning Networks and Connective Know –
ledge. Collective Intelligence and ELearning 20 Implications of
Web Based Communities and Networking. (pp. 1-26). IGI Pu –
blishing. (http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-729-4.ch001).
HANNAFIN, M.J. LAND, S. & OLIVER, K. (1999). Open Learning
En vironments: Foundations, Methods and Models. In C.M. REI –
GELUTH (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models. A New
Paradigm of Instructional Theory. (Volume II, pp. 115-140). Mah –
wah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
HILZENSAUER, W. & SCHAFFERT, S. (2008). On the way towards
Personal Learning Environments: Seven crucial aspects. In Elearn –
ing Papers, 9. (www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/media15 9 –
71. pdf) (10-05-2013).
INGRAM, A. & HATHORN L. (2004). Methods for analyzing collabo-
ration in online communications. In T. ROBERTS (Ed), Online
Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice. (pp. 215-241). Her –

C
om

un
ic

ar
, 4

2,
X

X
I,

20
14

Figure 6. Proposed model for methodological organisation of integration for collaborative learning.

C
om

un
ic

ar
, 4

2,
X

X
I,

20
14

shey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. (http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ 978-1-
59140-174-2.ch010).
JOHNSON, D. & JOHNSON, R. (1996). Cooperation and the Use of
Technology. In M.J. SPECTOR, D.M. MERRILL, J. VAN-MERRIEN –
BOER & M.P. DRISCOLL (Eds.), Handbook of Research for Edu –
cational Communications and Technology. (vol. 1, pp. 785-812).
New York: Routledge.
JOHNSON, D., JOHNSON, J. & HOLUBEC, E. (1999). El aprendizaje
cooperativo en el aula. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
JONASSEN, D.H., HOWLAND, J.L., MOORE, J.L. & MARRA, R.M.
(2003). Learning to Solve Problems with Technology: A Cons truc –
tivist Perspective. Upper Saddle River (New Jersey): Merrill Pren –
tice Hall.
KIRSCHNER, P.A. (2002). Can we support CSCL? Educational,
Social and Technological Affordances for Learning. In P.A. KIRS CH –
NER (Ed.), Three Worlds of CSCL: Can We Support CSCL? (pp.
7-47). Heerlen (The Netherlands): Open University of the
Netherlands. (http://hdl.handle.net/1820/1618) (17-08-2013).
LIPPONEN, L. (2002). Exploring Foundations for Computer-suppor-
ted Collaborative Learning, CSCL ‘02 Proceedings of the Con fe –
rence on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foun da –
tions for a CSCL Community. (pp. 72-81). (http://dl.acm. org/ –
citation.cfm?id=1658627) (17-08-2013).
MARÍN, V.I. (2013). Estrategias metodológicas para el uso de espacios
compartidos de conocimiento. In L. CASTAÑEDA Y J. ADELL (Eds.),
Entornos personales de aprendizaje: Claves para el ecosistema edu-
cativo en Red. (pp. 143-149). Alcoy: Marfil. (http://digitum.um.es/ –
xmlui/bitstream/10201/30419/1/capitulo81.pdf) (10-07-2013).
MARÍN, V.I. & SALINAS, J. (in press). First Steps in the Development
of a Model for Integrating Formal and Informal Learning in Virtual
Environments. In LEONE, S. (Ed.), Synergic Integration of Formal and
Informal E-Learning Environments for Adult Lifelong Learners.
Hershey (PA, USA): IGI Global. (DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-4655-1).
MARÍN, V.I., SALINAS, J. & DE-BENITO, B. (2013). Research Results
of Two Personal Learning Environments Experiments in a Higher
Education Institution. Interactive Learning Environments (Special
Issue: LMS – Evolving from Silos to Structures). (DOI: www.tand-
fonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10494820.2013.788031).
MARÍN, V.I., SALINAS, J. & DE BENITO, B. (2012). Using Symba –
looEDU as a PLE Organizer in Higher Education. Proceedings of
the PLE Conference 2012. Aveiro, Portugal. (http://revistas.ua.pt/ –
index.php/ple/article/view/1427) (10-05-2013).
ONRUBIA, J. (1997). Escenarios cooperativos. Cuadernos de Pe –
dagogía, 255, 65-70.
PRENDES, M.P. (2007). Internet aplicado a la educación: estrategias
di dácticas y metodologías. In CABERO, J. (Coord.), Nuevas tecnologías

aplicadas a la educación. (pp. 205-222). Madrid: McGraw-Hill.
REEVES, T.C. (2006). Design research from the technology perspec-
tive. In J. VAN-DEN-AKKER, K. GRAVEMEIJER, S. MCKENNEY & N.
NIEVEEN (Eds.), Educational Design Research. (pp. 86-109). Lon –
don: Routledge.
REEVES, T.C. (2000). Enhancing the Worth of Instructional
Technology Research through «Design Experiments» and Other
Development Research Strategies. International Perspectives on
Ins tructional Technology Research for the 21st Century Sym po –
sium. New Orleans, LA, USA.
SALINAS, J., MARÍN, V.I. & ESCANDELL, C. (in press). Exploring the
Possibilities of an Institutional PLE in higher education: Integration
of a VLE and an E-Portfolios System. International Journal of
Virtual and Personal Learning Environments.
SALINAS, J. (2012). La investigación ante los desafíos de los escena-
rios de aprendizaje futuros. Red, 32. (www.um.es/ead/red/32) (07-
05-2013).
SALINAS, J. (2013). Enseñanza flexible y aprendizaje abierto. Fun –
damentos clave de los PLEs. In L. CASTAÑEDA & J. ADELL (Eds.),
Entornos personales de aprendizaje: Claves para el ecosistema
educativo en Red. (pp. 53-70). Alcoy: Marfil. (http://digitum. um. –
es/ jspui/bitstream/10201/30410/1/capitulo3.pdf) (10.7.2013)
SALINAS, J., PÉREZ, A. & DE BENITO, B. (2008). Metodologías cen-
tradas en el alumno para el aprendizaje en Red. Madrid: Síntesis.
SCLATER, N. (2008). Web 2.0. Personal Learning Environments,
and the Future of Learning Management Systems. Educause Center
for Applied Research – Research Bulletin, 2008 (13). (www.educau-
se.edu/library/resources/web-20-personal-learning-environments-
and-future-learning-management-systems) (10-05-2013).
SLOEP, P. & BERLANGA, A. (2011). Redes de aprendizaje, aprendi-
zaje en Red. Comunicar, 37, 55-64. (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3 –
916/ C37-2011-02-05).
STAHL, G. (2000). A Model of Collaborative Knowledge-Building.
In B. FISHMAN & S. O’CONNOR-DIVELBISS (Eds.), Fourth Inter na –
tional Conference of the Learning Sciences. (pp. 70-77). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum. (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ down load? –
doi=10.1.1.97.8816&rep=rep1&type=pdf) (10-05-2013).
VAN-DEN-AKKER, J. (1999). Principles and Methods of Development
Research. In J. VAN DEN AKKER, R.M. BRANCH, K. GUSTAFSON, N.
NIEVEEN & T. PLOMP (Eds.), Design Approaches and Tools in Edu –
ca tion and Training. (pp. 1-14). Dordretch (The Netherlands): Klu –
wer Academic Publishers.
WHEELER, S. (2009). It’s Personal: Learning Spaces, Learning
Webs. Blog entry in Learning with with ‘e’s. (http://steve-wheeler. –
blogs pot.com.es/2009/10/its-personal-learning-spaces-learn –
ing.html) (07-05-2013).

Copyright of Comunicar is the property of Grupo Comunicar and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

solved: Copyright ©2001. All Rights Reserved. Copyright ©2001. All Rights Reserved. Copyright ©20

How it works

Will the writer plagiarize my essay?

Is this service safe?

WHY US?

Great services

Best essay writers

I passed

reliable writers