Comparative Study of Personal Learning Environment’s Construction Ways
and Technologies
Lizhen He
South China Normal University, P.R.China
876625176@qq.com
Yunxiang Zheng*South China Normal University, P.R.China
zsuzd@163.com
Abstract: Personal Learning Environment (PLE) represents a new trend in learning environment andmight be useful or indeed central to learning in the future. Several researches have been made since it was
proposed in 2004. Now it is widely used in personalized learning of all levels, from primary school
learning to university learning, and even lifelong learning. This paper aims to clarify three different ways of
constructing PLE and the associated technologies, such as Blog, ELGG, iGoogle, etc. By elucidating its
definition, characteristics and making comparative analysis, the paper summaries their respective
advantages and application scope. So as to give users some suggestion on customizing learning
environment according to their personal needs.
Keywords: Personal Learning Environment, construction way, PLE technology, comparative analysis* Corresponding author(This page is used for the printed version of the proceeding. The body should start from the next page)INTRODUCTION
With the rapid development of Information Communication Technology (ICT), especially web 2.0
technology that is characterized by highly decentralized, personalized and open, teaching and learning in theinformation age has greatly changed. The instructional design of a course or a lesson is paying more and more
attention to learner’s involvement, in order to improve learner’s personal experience and get better learning effect. In
this backdrop, trying to provide every learner with ICT environment to support personalized learning and lifelong
learning, has become one of the policies of Chinese ten-year development plan for education informatization(2011-2020). Learning on the basis of Personal Learning Environment (PLE) is a new-born learning pattern in thetrend of technical innovation and learning concept change, aiming to provide learners with personalized learning
services and open learning space, and ultimately enhance the efficiency and effect of knowledge construction.
PLE is an evolving term, one without a single, widely accepted definition. According to Wikipedia, theterm was first mentioned on a session at a JISC/CETIS conference in the year 2004 (Wikipedia 2008). Van Harmelen
defined PLE as system that helped learners take control of and manage their own learning (van Harmelen 2006).
Lubensky defined it as a facility for an individual to access, aggregate, configure and manipulate digital artifacts of
their ongoing learning experience (Lubensky 2006). FitzGerald considered it as a collection of free, distributed,
web-based tools, usually centered around a blog, linked together and aggregating content using RSS (Really Simple
Syndication) feeds and simple HTML scripts (FitzGerald 2006). And EDUCAUSE (a nonprofit association whose
mission is to advance higher education through the use of information technology in America) proposed that PLE
described the tools, communities, and services that constituted the individual educational platforms learners used todirect their own learning and pursue educational goals (EDUCAUSE 2009).
Inspired by the success of "sticky" new technologies in ubiquitous computing and social software (Attwell
2007), PLE is characterized by highly personalized, service oriented, and free & open in our opinion as follows.
(1) Highly personalized. Just as the name implies, PLE is learner centered and serves as study plots orlearning space. Learners can take control of their learning content, target, path or schedule independently by meansof subscription, sharing, communication, creation and so on.
(2) Service-oriented. PLE advocates the concept of personal service to meet personal needs, including
storage service, communication service, user profile service, etc., which changes learner’s role from information
consumer to prosumer (Schaffert & Hilzensauer 2008).
(3) Free & open. PLE not only provides learners with freeform use of a set of lightweight services andtools to shape their own personal learning space, but also gives learners a useful way to contact with others. So thatlearners are able to get together by forming and joining communities and communicate with each other easily,
breaking time and space boundary, which contributes to get a free and open surroundings and make learning become
easier.
PLE offers considerable potential for knowledge development and sharing, so that it is useful to everyone
who wishes to organize their own learning. To be specific, PLE does not only provide personal spaces, which belong
to and are controlled by the user, but also requires a social context by offering means to connect with other personal
spaces for effective knowledge sharing and collaborative knowledge creation. PLE can also be used in a way that
promotes self-regulation and autonomous learning in ways that are transferable between formal and informal
learning contexts (Dabbagh & Kitsantas 2012).

WAYS OF BUILDING PLE
Nowadays several research projects are in progress developing and researching PLE (Downes 2009; vanHarmelen 2009; Attwell 2009). And researchers have proposed several methods of constructing PLE, for example,
Chen advocated starting from Blog, Google services, and ZOHO services (Chen 2010), Ji & Li proposed integrating
Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), WIKI, and social aggregators to get a Mashup PLE (Ji & Li 2010), Wang triedbuilding PLE on basis of social network services (Wang 2009) , and Attwell introduced a Mashup approach made-up
of a collection of loosely coupled tools to build a PLE for workers’ knowledge development and maturing (working,learning, reflection and collaboration with others) to give labor market information as part of careers guidance(Attwell 2008), etc.
Technically, PLE can be represented as the integration of a number of Web 2.0 technologies like Blog,
Wiki, RSS, Tag, etc. Based on literature overview, we summarize three ways to build PLE effectively as follows.
(1) Building PLE on the basis of social software
PLE enables learners to change from knowledge consumers to prosumers, which cannot be realized

without effective learning, discussion, and sharing with others. Social software applications, also known as social
apps, include communication tools and interactive tools often based on the Internet. These tools focus on establishingand maintaining a connection among users, facilitating the mechanics of conversation and talk. Building PLE in thisway usually starts from picking up a certain social software application (foundation) then integrates other useful apps
or plug-ins on demand. In practice, Blog, Wiki, 360 library and so on are typical foundations. Among them Blog is
the most widely used.
(2) Building PLE on the basis of social aggregator
Resorting to social aggregator is another way to build PLE. Typical aggregators include Google, ZOHO,Netvibes, etc., with powerful, diversified Web 2.0 services. For instance, iGoogle provides Google Reader (foronline RSS reading), Google Docs (for web-based documents creation, edition, and collaboration in real-time withother learners), Google Calendar (for online schedule management), Gmail and Google Groups (to support
discussion groups). Learners can add, remove and rank the plug-ins by themselves according to their individualized
requirements.
(3) Building PLE on the basis of VLE
VLE is currently a prevalent education system based on the web that models conventional in-person
education by providing equivalent virtual access to classes, class content, homework, assessments, and other external
resources. According to our statistical results, Blackboard, WebCT, Moodle and Sakai are popular VLE platforms.
By adding some third-party tools and services like software components or widgets (Taraghi, Altmann & Ebner2011), they are able to provide customized services to support personalized learning better.

COMMONLY-USED TECHNOLOGIES OF PLE
Each of the above three ways has several typical implementation solutions in practice, e.g. when building
PLE on the basis of social software, we can choose Blog, 360doc, ELGG and so on as foundation to integrate otherapps or plug-ins; while building PLE on the basis of social aggregator, we can choose iGoogle, or Yahoo pipes tofulfill the presentation mashup and content mashup respectively; while in the case of building PLE on VLE, apossible solution is combining eyeOS and Moodle. This section introduces some of them one by one.
360doc is a free website for collection and share of documents. Once registered, users possess theirpersonal digital library, so that they can collect, file and share their resources. The advantage lies in its powerful
online reading room, enabling users to make ordinary operations on their articles, papers, posts, blog, and so on,share experience with each other, make friends with peers. Constructing PLE on the basis of 360doc results in an
open, convenient platform for learners to read, write and exchange personal experience with others, to file themorderly, to make subscriptions via RSS feeds, to tag them for further use like retrieval and matching, etc.
Blog is a discussion or informational site published on the World Wide Web and consisting of discrete
entries ("posts") typically displayed in reverse chronological order. The rise of Twitter and other "microblogging"systems helps integrate multi-author blogs and single-author blogs into societal newstreams. Blog is regarded as
personal “reader’s digests” in cyber era, making learners record and share their own viewpoints, experience andideas freely. From this point of view, it is considered as a small personal knowledge management system. Online
sharing helps to form a dynamic, effective and open community based on a certain topic, where learners read eachother’s tags, weblogs, or other shared documents. Moreover, it helps to make friends, give comments, start a
discussion or even burst new ideas through collaborative brainstorming. Constructing PLE associated with a certain
course on the basis of Blog easily covers learning modules such as virtual collaborative groups, searching by Google,
talking by IM (Instant Messenger), self reflection, resource sharing, etc. So that learners can get entry into theirgroup member’s PLE to exchange ideas or discuss, and teachers can get information about students’ current status,
learning progress and their thoughts according to students’ blogs or reflections. In addition, teachers and students canupload high-class resources to a certain PLE to let others learn, assess and propagate.
ELGG is an open source social networking software that provides individuals and organizations with thecomponents needed to create an online social environment. It encompasses weblogging, file storage, RSS
aggregation, personal profiles, collaborative community, and a number of other features. ELGG is free and open,
running on the LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP) platform. ELGG is widely implemented in educational
institutions. Learners can find partners according to tags, collect, classify and share their favorite resources, activate
built-in RSS subscription, and integrate with QQ, Wiki, and Google Reader as well. Constructing PLE on the basisof ELGG entails a powerful learning platform composed of modules such as learning management, smart
recommendation of learning material, collaborative learning, BBS, and the like, which are generally needed when

establishing an individual online environment.
iGoogle, a service of Google, is a customizable Ajax-based startpage or personal web portal. With iGoogle,
users can select unique themes for their homepages. iGoogle gadgets interact with the user and use the Google
Gadgets API (Google also allows users to create a special gadget that does not require the use of the Gadgets API.).
Constructing PLE on the basis of iGoogle provides one-stop service for users according to their customization,
without any extra endeavor to switch among several pages. It is able to merge Google Group, Gmail, Google
Calendar, Google Reader, Google Map, Google Scholar and so on into learner’s homepage, even though theinformation sources are scattered. In addition, learners are allowed to add additional modules or plug-ins in avisualized way through dragging and dropping.
eyeOS is a web desktop following the cloud computing concept that seeks to enable collaboration andcommunication among users. It is a private-cloud application platform with a web-based desktop interface, with file
management, personal management information tools, collaborative tools and integration of client’s applications.
Moodle (acronym for Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment) is a free software e-learning
software platform, also known as a Learning Management System. Moodle can be used in many types ofenvironments such as in education, training and development, and business settings. Some typical features of Moodle
are assignment submission, discussion forum, grading, online calendar, online quiz, etc. Integrating eyeOS with
Moodle by invoking Moodle’s API in eyeOS helps to get an application system on cloud infrastructure to provide
learners with personalized service. So that learners can access their resources and services via web browsers on
handheld terminals like iPhone, iPad, PDA, etc. Constructing PLE on the basis of eyeOS and Moodle mainly
provides three useful tools, i.e. tools for collecting information such as RSS feeds, networking digest, search engine,
FTP and the like, tools for processing information such as Blog, Wiki, IM and the like, and tools supporting learning
behaviors under Moodle.

COMPARATIVE RESULTS
As a new learning environment form, PLE provides personalized services and open space for users.
Different construction ways and technologies mentioned above lead to multi-purpose PLEs, with merits anddrawbacks each. In practice it is beneficial to select one or modify or even mix up several methods according to
specific requirements. To this end, it is advisable to get a clear understanding of their advantages and application
scopes by comparative analysis.
In general, measurement of assessing an online learning environment include Lias and Paul’s fivedimension indicator consisting of content accessibility, tool, interaction, learning support and online assessment(Basioudis & Paul 2009), Li’s five driving factors which is comprised of information, interaction, evaluation, support
and aesthetics (Li 2009), and Zhang’s eight-indicator system including instructional design, content design, website
design, flexibility, student interaction, teaching support, technical support and assessment (Zhang 2004). Inspired bythese indicators, we propose the following evaluation dimensions for PLE.
(1) Content Management: About its provision of or extensibility to encompass cognitive tools, search tools,
e-labels, article management tools (such as Network Digest, ZhuaXia, XianGuo), as well as other similar tools to
help learners read, label, and share resource content.
(2) Learning Interaction: About its provision of or extensibility to integrate Instant Messenger, Wiki,microblog, E-mail, etc. to facilitate interaction between students and students, students and teachers, or even teachers
and teachers during course learning, personalized learning or lifelong learning.
(3) Mentoring Support: About mentor’s intervention when it is needed, especially when students havedifficulty in a certain knowledge point or problem-solving and need guidance or help from teachers. In this case,mentors should be allowed to intervene directly on the PLE, by examining students' learning process, answering
questions in time, offering new suitable material, giving feedbacks or suggestions, and so on.
(4) Technical Support: About PLE’s technical support for favorites collection, classification, personal
homepage customization, etc.
Table 1 Comparative analysis of the associated technologies
Technologies
ELGG
iGoogle360docBlog
Items compared

Content

Content learning

√

√

√

√

eyeOS
+Moodle√Manageme
nt

Learning
Interaction

Google search
RSS subscription
e-Calendar
Network digest
Tag
ZhuaXia
XianGuo

√
√
√
√
√

√
√
√
√
√

QQ

√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√

√

√

Wiki

√

√

√

Microblogging√√

E-mail

√

√

√
√
√

Technical
Support√√√√Real-time chat room

Mentoring
Support√√√Notification release

√

√

√

√

Learning guidance

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

Uploading resource√

Instant feedback
Synchronous
updating of
supporting resources
Favorites Collection
Favorites
Classification
Favorites Sharing
Integration ofmultimedia resources
Modules / plug-ins
customization

√
√
√

√
√

√
√

√
√

√
√

√
√

√
√

√
√

√
√

√
√

√

√

√

√

(1) Content Management
In 8 sub-items of content management, Blog owns 8, iGoogle and ELGG both own 6, eyeOS+Moodle
owns 5, and 360doc 4. Comparatively speaking, owing to its compatibility and extensibility, Blog provides more
powerful content management functionalities than other four technologies. Especially in China, ZhuaXia and
XianGuo are popular online / mobile reading websites supported by RSS, so that it’ll be more convenient to integratethem into a PLE. As a result, when building a PLE in the case of collecting, filing and reflecting what has beenmarked down, Blog is more suitable. While if reading, sharing or classifying is enough, 360doc can be a good choice
to establish personal digital library.
(2) Learning Interaction
Among the five technologies, only 360doc can not integrate any communication tools. As a result, its
interactive learning functionality is weak, especially instant interaction. On the contrary, Blog and ELGG both havethe advantage of integrating common communication tools, and iGoogle is roughly the same, whereas
eyeOS+Moodle is capable of integrating Wiki and real-time chat room. That is to say, collaboration among partners
is available in most of these technologies, no matter in the form of real-time (QQ) or non real-time (Wiki, e-mail).
Consequently if real-time discussion and interaction is required when constructing a PLE, Bog, ELGG, iGoogle oreyeOS+Moodle is preferable, otherwise 360doc is acceptable to deliver normal reading, filing and sharing

functinalities.
(3) Mentoring Support
Among the five technologies, only 360doc’s mentoring support is weak, as it merely provides mentors
with resource uploading and sharing. In contrast, the remaining four support notification release to inform learners ofsome announcement, learning guidance to give instructions to learners so that they’ll be clear about learning goal andrequirement, instant feedback to enable mentors to join in learners’ PLE group and give real-time support. Moreover,eyeOS+Moodle easily assists synchronous updating of supporting resources, as it’s usually administrated by teacher,matching course topic, content and resource in a much closer way, and it supports almost all common learning
resources as well, e.g. teaching video, exercise / homework, teaching case, special subject learning website, etc.
(4) Technical Support
From the integrity and extensibility point of view, PLE should be equipped with basic functionalities likefavorites collection, classification and sharing. Fortunately five selected technologies fulfill these needs by enablingusers to store up favorite documents, catalog personal collection, share their collection with others, and subscribe
others’ collection, etc. In addition, the constructed PLE should support common types of multimedia resources, suchas Flash courseware, PowerPoint, JPEG image, MP4 video, HTML or JSP web pages, and the like. Results show thatthese selected technologies basically meet this challenge. Comparatively speaking, Blog limits resource type to
image, audio and video, which relatively weakens its usability. When it comes to modules or plug-ins customization,
360doc shows a lack of user definition, while the other four enrich the PLE infrastructure through a variety of ways.
For example, ELGG facilitates users by offering simple interface for adding Blog, tag, calendar, group and activity
modules. In general, the above five technologies give sufficient technical support for users to customize theirlearning platform according to individual needs.
As is shown above, overall functionality of PLE built on the basis of Blog or ELGG is robust. In practice
Blog is a bit more popular because of its adaptability in many application fields. Moreover, building PLE on Blog
requires less workload since it is widely used. While ELGG seems more official and compatible owing to its open
architecture, which gives highest customization in selecting and adding tools, plug-ins, and services. iGoogle also
matches almost all “requirements” listed in table 1, except that it seems to work well with Google suites, e.g. Gmail,
Google Calendar, Google Reader, etc. Being a kind of VLE and usually administrated by teachers in stead of learners,
eyeOS+Moodle shows deficiency in interaction or online communication, but its supporting resources are superior tothe other four technologies.
In summary, 360doc is applicable when interaction and mentoring support are not mandatory in designinga PLE, suitable for personal reading and writing with great content management potential, Blog is so popular that wecan put it down as the first choice in informal situation, ELGG is suitable for building PLE in need of open standards
and open APIs allowing users to ‘plug in’ their own favorite tools and providing interoperability with otherapplications, e.g. under the circumstances of course learning where students aggregate their own learning tools
according to their personal needs, iGoogle is suitable for constructing personal web portal incorporating Google
toolkits by default, and eyeOS+Moodle is preferable when building PLE closed to curriculum instruction and the
VLE currently used is easy to extend or update (some monolithic VLEs are too hard to customize at the individualuser level (Severance, Hardin & Whyte 2008)), without imperative request for instant messaging.

CONCLUSION
The idea of a Personal Learning Environment recognizes that learning is continuous and seeks to provide
tools to support multi episodic learning -- learning will take place in different contexts and situations and will not beprovided by a single learning provider. With the growth of Web 2.0 and Rich Internet Application (RIA)
technologies, PLE has gained increasing attention since 2004. This paper elucidates PLE’s definition andcharacteristics, and clarifies three different ways of constructing PLE, i.e. building PLE on the basis of social
software, social aggregator, and VLE, within which at least one representative technology is selected to makecomparative analysis in detail. Results show that each of the selected five technologies has its own advantage andapplication scope. Users may refer to the above suggestion when customizing learning environment in practice.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was supported by MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Project of Humanities and Social Sciences under
grant No.13YJC880120, Foundation for Distinguished Young Talents in Higher Education of Guangdong under grantNo.2012WYM_0046, Scientific Research Project supported by Ministry of Education and China Mobile under grant
No.MCM20121011, Research Project of the 11th Five-years Plan of Guangdong Education Science under grant No.2010tjk298,
and Educational Technology Research Project of Guangdong under grant No.yjjy12B009.

Literature Reference
Wikipedia. (2008). History of personal learning environments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_personal_learning_environments
van Harmelen, M. (2006). Personal Learning Environments. the 6th International Conference on Advanced Learning
Technologies (ICALT'06), IEEE. Kerkrade, The Netherlands. 815-816.
Lubensky, Ron. (2006). The present and future of Personal Learning Environments (PLE),
http://www.360doc.com/content/07/1213/21/50534_892566.shtml
FitzGerald, Sean. (2006). Creating your Personal Learning Environment. http://seanfitz.wikispaces.com/creatingyourple
EDUCAUSE. (2009). 7 things you should know about Personal Learning Environments.
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7049.pdf
Attwell Graham. (2007). Personal Learning Environments - the future of eLearning? eLearning Papers, 2(1), 1-8.
Schaffert Sandra, & Hilzensauer Wolf. (2008). On the way towards Personal Learning Environments: Seven crucial aspects.
eLearning Papers, (9), 1-11.
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural
formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3-8.
Downes, S. (2009). New tools for personal learning, talk at MEFANET 2009 Conference, Brno, Czech Republic,
http://www.downes.ca/presentation/234
van HARMELEN, M. (2009). The Manchester PLE: Foundations, Realization, Experience and Change, Personal Learning
Environments & Personal Learning Networks. http://ple.elg.ca/speakers.php
ATTWELL,G. (2009). Appropriating technologies for contextual knowledge: Mobile Personal Learning Environments, Personal
Learning Environments & Personal Learning Networks. http://ple.elg.ca/speakers.php
Chen L. (2010). Construction of Personal Online Learning Environment for Graduate Students – Take Educational Technology as
an Example. Dissertation of Northwest Normal University. (in Chinese)
Ji S.S., & Li C.W. (2010). Research overview of mashup personal learning environment. Researches in Library Science, (10),8516-8517. (in Chinese)
Wang L.M. (2009). Research of personal learning environment based on Web 2.0 social software. Computer Knowledge andTechnology, (9), 12-17. (in Chinese)
Attwell Graham, Bimrose Jenny, Brown Alan, & Barnes Sally-Anne. (2008). Maturing Learning: Mashup Personal Learning
Environments. 1st Workshop MUPPLE’08, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 78-86.
Taraghi, B., Altmann, T., & Ebner, M. (2011). The World of Widgets - An Important Step towards a Personalized Learning
Environment. the PLE Conference 2011, Southampton, UK. 1- 8.
Basioudis Lias G., & Paul A. de Lange. (2009). An assessment of the learning benefits of using a Web-based Learning
Environment when teaching accounting. Advances in Accounting, (25), 13-19.
Li A.J. (2009). Application evaluation of learning environment in network course. Chinese Educational Technology Equipement,(6), 111-112. (in Chinese)
Zhang W.Y. (2004). Design and development of online learning environment’s evaluation model, indicator system andassessment metric. Chinese Educational Technology, (7), 29-33. (in Chinese)
Severance Charles, Hardin Joseph & Whyte Anthony. (2008). The coming functionality mash-up in Personal Learning
Environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 16(1), 47-62.