Universities can offer eLearning 2.0 tools and services to learners while obtaining clear benefits from releasing the control over some learning content. This means a shift from the institution centred and monolithic model of traditional virtual learning environments (VLEs) to a more heterogeneous and open model. This article tries to plot an architecture to be put in practice by universities to give learners the control of their learning processes by using eLearning 2.0. We propose an institutionally powered personal learning environment (iPLE) that constitutes our vision of how Web 2.0 tools (blogs, wikis, starting pages), services (del.icio.us, Flickr, YouTube) and people arrangement and data sharing (social networking, learn-streaming) could be applied in an integrated manner to learning processes. First, this article justifies the suitability for a PLE in the context of eLearning 2.0 and European Higher Education Area. Second, an overview of the evolution from VLEs to PLEs is given, and different PLE approaches are reviewed. Third, the concept of an iPLE is presented, and a conceptual architecture for it is detailed. Finally, this article also describes the technological aspects of a prototype of iPLE Network designed for the University of the Basque Country, which will be used as a test-bed for a case study in the Faculty of Medicine.

Learning Object Repositories constitute a comprehensive strategy to support ICT use in educational contexts. From this perspective, user participation in repository services is a desirable objective. We propose a contribution model that makes it possible to analyze the openness of these services in a repository. We also make a proposal of six Web 2.0 strategies to be used to encourage social dynamics and participation around a repository.

No abstract

An interesting aspect in the current literature about learning networks is the shift of focus from the understanding of the “whole network” of a course to the examination of the “personal networks” of individual students. This line of research is relatively new, based on small‐scale studies and diverse analysis techniques, which demands for more empirical research in order to contextualize the findings and to meta‐analyze the research methods. The main objective of this paper is to review two research questions posed by a previous British Journal of Educational Technology contribution by Shane Dawson in order to know whether the differences in personal network composition impact on the performance of students. The two questions were defined by Dawson as follows: (1) Are there significant differences in personal network composition between high‐ and low‐performing students? and (2) Do high‐performing students have larger personal networks than their low‐performing peers? In addition, the “clustered graphs” method used in this study allows the inclusion of the structural analysis of personal networks. In doing so, a new research question is addressed: (3) Are there significant differences in personal network structure between high‐ and low‐performing students? This paper tries to answer these questions in the context of two undergraduate, inter‐university and fully online courses, and two different technology‐enhanced learning environments (a virtual learning environment and a personal learning environment) where interactions took place indirectly through shared resources. The results show that the network behaviors of high‐ and low‐performing students' are strongly correlated, and that high‐performing students developed larger personal networks than low performers.

The design and evaluation of Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) is a complex issue where higher education institutions and learning analytics can play an important role. As an example of this, this paper presents a case study focused on the effect that service multiplexity of institutionally-powered PLEs has on the composition and structure of students’ personal networks. The evaluation of the case was carried out using social network analysis as the particular approach to learning analytics.