Preservice teachers’ Web 2.0 experiences and perceptions on Web 2.0 as a personal learning environment

  • Jieun LimEmail author
  • Timothy J. Newby


To explore students’ use of Web 2.0 tools and their perceptions of using Web 2.0 as a personal learning environment (PLE), quantitative surveys (n = 113) and interviews (n = 12) were conducted. In the survey, we identified that students already have familiarity with using Web 2.0 tools, as well as a positive attitude toward using Web 2.0 for learning. However, in the interview, students referenced challenges with using Web 2.0 in their PLE. The results imply that there are gaps between students’ perceived comfort and familiarity with using Web 2.0 tools and their readiness to be an active and successful designer for Web 2.0-based PLEs. This research also identified that there may be other factors influencing students’ building PLEs with Web 2.0 tools including the knowledge of different tools, the abilities of identifying learning objectives and learning styles, access to the tools, motivation, and knowing how to locate the correct information through students’ interviews.


Personal learning environment (PLE) Web 2.0 Students’ perceptions Technology integration Use of Web 2.0 tools Mixed method research 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Archee, R. (2012). Reflections on personal learning environments: Theory and practice. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 55, 419–428.Google Scholar
  2. Armatas, C., Spratt, C., & Vincent, A. (2014). Putting connectivist principles into practice: A case study of an online tertiary course. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(2), 81–91.Google Scholar
  3. Attwell, G. (2007). Personal learning environments—The future of e-learning? E-Learning Papers, 1(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  4. Attwell, G., Castañeda, L., & Buchem, I. (2013). Special issue from the personal learning environments 2011 conference. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 4(4), 1–4.Google Scholar
  5. Barrio-García, S., Arquero, J. L., & Romero-Frías, E. (2015). Personal learning environments acceptance model: The role of need for cognition, e-learning satisfaction and students’ perceptions. Educational Technology and Society, 18(3), 129–141.Google Scholar
  6. Bassani, P. B. S., & Barbosa, D. N. F. (2018). Experiences with Web 2.0 in school settings: A framework to foster educational practices based on a personal learning environment perspective. Educação em Revista, 34, 1–27.Google Scholar
  7. Bellini, C. G. P., Isoni Filho, M. M., de Moura Junior, P. J., & de Faria Pereira, R. D. C. (2016). Self-efficacy and anxiety of digital natives in face of compulsory computer-mediated tasks: A study about digital capabilities and limitations. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 49–57.Google Scholar
  8. Bennett, S., Bishop, A., Dalgarno, B., Waycott, J., & Kennedy, G. (2012). Implementing Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study. Computers & Education, 59(2), 524–534.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, S. A. (2012). Seeing Web 2.0 in context: A study of academic perceptions. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 50–57.Google Scholar
  10. Butler, J. (2012). Grappling with change: Web 2.0 and teacher education. In D. Polly, C. Mims, & K. A. Persichitte (Eds.), Developing technology-rich teacher education programs: Key issues (pp. 135–150). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, J., Shih, T., Wang, C., Yeh, S., & Lee, C. (2008). Combine personal blog functionalities with LMS using tools interoperability architecture. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on advanced information networking and applications (pp. 146–151).
  12. Conde, M. A., García-Peñalvo, F. J., Rodríguez-Conde, M. J., Alier, M., Casany, M. J., & Piguillem, J. (2014). An evolving learning management system for new educational environments using 2.0 tools. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(2), 188–204.Google Scholar
  13. Conole, G. (2009). Personalisation through technology-enhanced learning. In J. O’Donoghue (Ed.), Technology-supported environments for personalized learning: Methods and case studies (pp. 1–15). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Scholar
  14. Craig, E. M. (2007). Changing paradigms: Managed learning environments and Web 2.0. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 24(3), 152–161.Google Scholar
  15. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Cych, L., Williams, L., & Younie, S. (2018). Using Web 2.0 technologies to enhance learning and teaching. In S. Younie & P. Bradshaw (Eds.), Debates in computing and ICT education (pp. 97–113). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Czerkawski, B., & Gonzales, D. P. (2014). Major trends, issues, and challenges with learning management systems. In Handbook of research on emerging priorities and trends in distance education: Communication, pedagogy, and technology (pp. 318–331). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Dabbagh, N., Kitsantas, A., Al-Freih, M., & Fake, H. (2015). Using social media to develop personal learning environments and self-regulated learning skills: A case study. International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments, 3(3), 163–183.Google Scholar
  20. Davidson, P. L. (2017). Personal learning environments and the diversity of digital natives. Open Access Library Journal, 4(5), 1–7.Google Scholar
  21. DePietro, P. (2013). Tool literacy. Counterpoints, 435, 15–25.Google Scholar
  22. Dignath-van Ewijk, C., & van der Werf, G. (2012). What teachers think about self-regulated learning: Investigating teacher beliefs and teacher behavior of enhancing students’ self-regulation. Education Research International, 2012, 1–10.Google Scholar
  23. Dogoriti, E., Pange, J., & Anderson, G. S. (2014). The use of social networking and learning management systems in English language teaching in higher education. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 31(4), 254–263.Google Scholar
  24. Dohn, N. B. (2009). Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 343–363.Google Scholar
  25. Educause Learning Initiative (ELI). (2009). The seven things you should know about personal learning environments. Retrieved March 13, 2019 from
  26. Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J., Yu, J. H., Liu, W., Tomory, A., Lee, Y. M., et al. (2011). Facilitating students’ global perspectives: Collaborating with international partners using Web 2.0 technologies. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 251–261.Google Scholar
  27. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
  28. Eyyam, R., Menevi, I., & Dogruer, N. (2011). Perceptions of teacher candidates towards Web 2.0 technologies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2663–2666.Google Scholar
  29. Faizi, R., Chiheb, R., & El Afia, A. (2015). Students’ perceptions towards using Web 2.0 technologies in education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 10(6), 32–36.Google Scholar
  30. Fiedler, S., & Valjataga, T. (2011). Personal learning environments: Concept or technology? International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments (IJVPLE), 2(4), 1–11. Scholar
  31. Fiedler, S., & Väljataga, T. (2013). Personal learning environments: A conceptual landscape revisited. E-Learning Papers, 35, 1–16.Google Scholar
  32. Gillet, D. (2013). Personal learning environments as enablers for connectivist MOOCs. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on information technology based higher education and training (pp. 1–5), Antalya, Turkey. Retrieved March 13, 2019 from
  33. Godwin-Jones, R. (2012). Challenging hegemonies in online learning. Language Learning and Technology, 16(2), 4–13.Google Scholar
  34. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.Google Scholar
  35. Grosseck, G. (2009). To use or not to use Web 2.0 in higher education? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 478–482.Google Scholar
  36. Halimi, K., Seridi-Bouchelaghem, H., & Faron-Zucker, C. (2014). An enhanced personal learning environment using social semantic web technologies. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(2), 165–187.Google Scholar
  37. Harmelen, M. (2008). Design trajectories: Four experiments in PLE implementation. Interactive Learning Environments, 16(1), 35–46.Google Scholar
  38. Haworth, R. (2016). Personal learning environments: A solution for self-directed learners. TechTrends, 60(4), 359–364.Google Scholar
  39. Hughes, K. (2011, September). The wiki way: Supporting collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the Irish academy of management conference, Dublin, Ireland. Retrieved April 2, 2019 from
  40. Ivanova, M., & Chatti, M. A. (2011). Toward a model for the conceptual understanding of personal learning environments: A case study. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 39(4), 419–439.Google Scholar
  41. Järvelä, S. (2006). Personalised learning? New insights into fostering learning capacity. In OECD-CERI (Ed.), Personalising education (pp. 31–46). Paris: OECD/CERI.Google Scholar
  42. Judd, T. (2018). The rise and fall (?) of the digital natives. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 99–119.Google Scholar
  43. Koltay, T., Špiranec, S., & Karvalics, L. Z. (2015). The shift of information literacy towards research 2.0. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(1), 87–93.Google Scholar
  44. Kompen, R. T., Edirisingha, P., Canaleta, X., Alsina, M., & Monguet, J. M. (2019). Personal learning environments based on Web 2.0 services in higher education. Telematics and Informatics, 38, 194–206.Google Scholar
  45. Kompen, R.T., Edirisingha, P., & Mobbs, R. (2008). Building Web 2.0-based personal learning environments: A conceptual framework. Paper presented at the European distance and e-learning network conference, Paris, France. Retrieved April 2, 2019 from
  46. Kompen, R. T., Edirisingha, P., & Monguet, J. M. (2009). Using Web 2.0 applications as supporting tools for personal learning environments. In M. D. Lytras, P. Ordóñez de Pablos, E. Damiani, D. Avison, A. Naeve, & D. G. Horner (Eds.), Best practices for the knowledge society. Knowledge, learning, development and technology for all (pp. 33–40). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 19–38.Google Scholar
  48. Kop, R., & Fournier, H. (2013). Developing a framework for research on personal learning environments. Elearning Papers, 35, 1–16. Retrieved February 23, 2016 from
  49. Korhonen, A. M., Ruhalahti, S., & Veermans, M. (2019). The online learning process and scaffolding in student teachers’ personal learning environments. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 755–779.Google Scholar
  50. Lee, M. J., Miller, C., & Newnham, L. (2008). RSS and content syndication in higher education: Subscribing to a new model of teaching and learning. Educational Media International, 45(4), 311–322.Google Scholar
  51. Lin, W. J., Yueh, H. P., Liu, Y. L., Murakami, M., Kakusho, K., & Minoh, M. (2006, July). Blog as a tool to develop e-learning experience in an international distance course. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 290–292), Kerkrade, Netherlands.
  52. Luckin, R., Clark, W., Graber, R., Logan, K., Mee, A., & Oliver, M. (2009). Do Web 2.0 tools really open the door to learning? Practices, perceptions and profiles of 11–16-year-old students. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 87–104.Google Scholar
  53. Luo, Y. (2014). Use of Web 2.0 technologies: A virtual ethnographic and phenomenological study of first-year engineering students’ experiences (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses @ CIC Institutions (1615399917).Google Scholar
  54. Martindale, T., & Dowdy, M. (2016). Issues in research, design, and development of personal learning environments. In T. Anderson (Ed.), Emergence and innovation in digital learning (pp. 119–142). Edmonton: Athabasca University.Google Scholar
  55. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2010). Personalised and self-regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 28–43.Google Scholar
  56. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  57. Mitchell, G. W., Wohleb, E. C., & Skinner, L. B. (2016). Perceptions of public educators regarding accessibility to technology and the importance of integrating technology across the curriculum. The Journal of Research in Business Education, 57(2), 14–25.Google Scholar
  58. Mödritscher, F., Krumay, B., El Helou, S., Gillet, D., Nussbaumer, A., Albert, D., et al. (2011). May I suggest? Comparing three PLE recommender strategies. Digital Education Review, 20, 1–13.Google Scholar
  59. Muhammad, A. H., & Musbah, K. T. (2013). Improvement quality of LMS through application of social networking sites. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 8(3), 48–51.Google Scholar
  60. Muscarà, M., & Beercock, S. (2010). The wiki—A virtual home base for constructivist blended learning courses. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2885–2889.Google Scholar
  61. O’Connell, T. S., & Dyment, J. E. (2016). ‘I’m just not that comfortable with technology’: Student perceptions of and preferences for Web 2.0 technologies in reflective journals. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(3), 392–411.Google Scholar
  62. Olivier, B., & Liber, O. (2001). Lifelong learning: The need for portable personal learning environments and supporting interoperability standards. Retrieved October 20, 2007 from
  63. Patterson, C., Stephens, M., Chiang, V., Price, A. M., Work, F., & Snelgrove-Clarke, E. (2017). The significance of personal learning environments (PLEs) in nursing education: Extending current conceptualizations. Nurse Education Today, 48, 99–105.Google Scholar
  64. Perera, M. U., Gardner, L., & Peiris, A. (2016, December). Investigating the interrelationship between undergraduates’ digital literacy and self-regulated learning skills. Paper presented at the 37th International Conference on Information Systems, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  65. Prendes Espinosa, M. P., Castañeda, L., Gutierrez, I., & Román, M. (2016). Still far from personal learning: Key aspects and emergent topics about how future professionals’ PLEs are. Digital Education Review, 29, 15–30.Google Scholar
  66. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.Google Scholar
  67. Rahimi, E., Berg, J., & Veen, W. (2014a). A pedagogy-driven framework for integrating Web 2.0 tools into educational practices and building personal learning environments. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 15(2), 54–79.Google Scholar
  68. Rahimi, E., Berg, J., & Veen, W. (2014b). A learning model for enhancing the student’s control in educational process using Web 2.0 personal learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 780–792.Google Scholar
  69. Rahimi, E., Berg, J., & Veen, W. (2015). Facilitating student-driven constructing of learning environments using Web 2.0 personal learning environments. Computers & Education, 81, 235–246.Google Scholar
  70. Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Exploring pre-service teachers’ beliefs about using Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 classroom. Computers & Education, 59(3), 937–945.Google Scholar
  71. Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). An investigation of the factors that influence preservice teachers’ intentions and integration of Web 2.0 tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(1), 37–64.Google Scholar
  72. Schaffert, S., & Hilzensauer, W. (2008). On the way towards personal learning environments: Seven crucial aspects. Elearning Papers, 9(2), 1–11.Google Scholar
  73. Seufert, S., Stanoevska-Slabeva, K., Müller, S., & Scheffler, N. (2015). The design of personal learning environments with scope on information literacy in high school. In L. Uden, D. Liberona, & T. Welzer (Eds.), Learning technology for education in cloud (pp. 148–163). Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  74. Shaikh, Z. A., & Khoja, S. A. (2014). Personal learning environments and university teacher roles explored using Delphi. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(2), 202–226.Google Scholar
  75. Sie, R. L., Pataraia, N., Boursinou, E., Rajagopal, K., Margaryan, A., Falconer, I., et al. (2013). Goals, motivation for, and outcomes of personal learning through networks: Results of a tweetstorm. Educational Technology and Society, 16(3), 59–75.Google Scholar
  76. Siemens, G., Downes, S., Cormier, D., & Kop, R. (2010, September 1). PLENK 2010–Personal learning environments, networks and knowledge. Retrieved March 13, 2019 from
  77. Smith, E.E., Kahlke, R. & Judd, T. (2018). From digital natives to digital literacy: Anchoring digital practices through learning design. In Proceedings of the Australasian society for computers in learning in tertiary education conference (pp. 510–515).Google Scholar
  78. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  79. Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2), 302–312.Google Scholar
  80. Thompson, P. (2015). How digital native learners describe themselves. Education and Information Technologies, 20(3), 467–484.Google Scholar
  81. Togia, A., Korobili, S., Malliari, A., & Nitsos, I. (2015). Teachers’ views of information literacy practices in secondary education: A qualitative study in the Greek educational setting. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 47(3), 226–241.Google Scholar
  82. Tu, C. H., Sujo-Montes, L., Yen, C. J., Chan, J. Y., & Blocher, M. (2012). The integration of personal learning environments and open network learning environments. TechTrends, 56(3), 13–19.Google Scholar
  83. Tu, C. H., Yen, C. J., & Sujo-Montes, L. E. (2015). Personal learning environments and self-regulated learning. In R. Papa (Ed.), Media rich instruction (pp. 35–48). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  84. Tu, C. H., Yen, C. J., Sujo-Montes, L., & Sealander, K. (2018). Digital lifelong-learning literacy. In R. Papa & S. W. Armfield (Eds.), The wiley handbook of educational policy (pp. 531–550). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Inc.Google Scholar
  85. Väljataga, T., Pata, K., & Tammets, K. (2010). Considering learners’ perspectives to personal learning environments in course design. In M. J. W. Lee & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Web 2.0-based e-learning: Applying social informatics for tertiary teaching (pp. 85–108). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  86. Valtonen, T., Hacklin, S., Dillon, P., Vesisenaho, M., Kukkonen, J., & Hietanen, A. (2012). Perspectives on personal learning environments held by vocational students. Computers & Education, 58(2), 732–739.Google Scholar
  87. Virtanen, J., & Rasi, P. (2017). Integrating Web 2.0 Technologies into face-to-face PBL to support producing, storing, and sharing content in a higher education course. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 11(1), 1–12. Scholar
  88. Wilson, S., Liber, O., Johnson, M. W., Beauvoir, P., Sharples, P., & Milligan, C. D. (2007). Personal learning environments: Challenging the dominant design of educational systems. Journal of E-learning and Knowledge Society, 3(2), 27–38.Google Scholar
  89. Yen, C. J., Tu, C. H., Sujo-Montes, L., & Sealander, K. (2016). A predictor for PLE management: Impacts of self-regulated online learning on students’ learning skills. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 9(1), 29–48.Google Scholar
  90. Zhou, H. (2013, March). Understanding personal learning environment: A literature review on elements of the concept. In Proceedings of the society for information technology and teacher education international conference (pp. 1161–1164), New Orleans, LA, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Education and Human DevelopmentUniversity of North DakotaGrand ForksUSA
  2. 2.College of EducationPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations