Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 755–779 | Cite as

The online learning process and scaffolding in student teachers’ personal learning environments

  • A.-M. KorhonenEmail author
  • S. Ruhalahti
  • M. Veermans


Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) enable lifelong learning and make competences visible in education and professional life. This paper illuminates how to design an online learning process that enables deep learning through PLEs based upon our study of a scaffolding process supported by Web 2.0 tools. Professional student teachers developed their own blogs as PLEs, and we collected data from five student teacher groups. We employed the DIANA pedagogical model to design a dialogical, collaborative, and authentic learning process before comparing its activities against the activities of the five-stage model for scaffolding designed for online learning processes. The results indicate that the DIANA model includes the elements of the five-stage model, and it appears that teacher scaffolding is particularly important in student PLEs. These findings provide insights to other practitioners seeking to design and implement online learning processes that are based on collaborative knowledge construction utilizing students’ Personal Learning Environments.


Online learning Personal learning environment Scaffolding Pedagogy Web 2.0 tools 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Aarnio, H. (2006). Oppijalähtöisyyttä ja yhteisöllisyyttä tietoverkkoja ja verkostoja hyödyntävään oppimiseen – Tutkimustuloksia DIANA-klinikalta [Enhancing learner-centredness and collaboration in learning online and in networks – results from DIANA clinic]. Saarijärvi: Saarijärven Offset Oy.Google Scholar
  2. Aarnio, H., & Enqvist, J. (2004). Kohti tiedon yhdessä luomista verkossa: DIANA-projekti [towards collaborative knowledge creation online: DIANA-project 2002–2003]. Saarijärvi: Saarijärven Offset Oy.Google Scholar
  3. Aarnio, H., & Enqvist, J. (2016). DIANA-mallistako kehys digiajan oppimiselle [DIANA model – A framework for learning in the digital age]. Ammattikasvatuksen aikakauskirja, 18(3).Google Scholar
  4. Abram, S. (2007). Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and Librarian 2.0: Preparing for the 2.0 World. In S. Ricketts & C. Birdie & E. Isaksson (Eds.), Library and Information Services in Astronomy V: Common Challenges, Uncommon Solutions (pp. 161–166). Massachusetts: ASP Conference Series.Google Scholar
  5. Agostinho, S., Bennet, S., Lockyer, L., Jones, J., & Harper, B. (2013). Learning Designs as a Stimulus and Support for Teachers’ Design Practices. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age (pp. 119–132). New York: Roudledge.Google Scholar
  6. Aramo-Immonen, H., Ammirato, S. & Jussila, J. (2016). Blogging as a virtual co-learning environment in international course context in L. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, I. Candel Torres (Eds.). Barcelona: 8 th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies. Edulearn16 conference, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  7. Attwell, G. (2007). Personal learning environments – The future of learning?, eLearning Papers 2(1). Accessed 12 March 2017.
  8. Barajas, M., & Frossard, F. (2017). Mapping creative pedagogies in open wiki learning environments. Education and Information Tehcnologies, 23(3), 1403–1419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bassani, P., & Barbosa, D. (2018). Experiences with web 2.0 in school settings: A framework to foster educational practices based on a personal learning environment perspective. Educacao em Revista, 34.
  10. Beetham, H. (2013). Designing for learning in an uncertain future. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age (pp. 258–281). New York: Roudledge.Google Scholar
  11. Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. (1992). . Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  12. Bouhnik, D., & Deshen, M. (2014). WhatsApp goes to school: Mobile instant messaging between teachers and students. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 13, 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bower, M., & Hedberg, J. (2010). A quantitative multimodal discourse analysis of teaching and learning in a web-conferencing environment – The efficacy of student-centred learning designs. Computers & Education, 54, 462–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Castaneda, L., & Adell, J. (2013). Beyond the tools: Analyzing personal and group learning environments in a university course. Culture and Education, 26(4), 739–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., Disessa, A., & Lehrer, R. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. American Educational Research Assosiation, 32(1), 9–13.Google Scholar
  16. Dabbagh, N. (2003). Scaffolding: An important teacher competency in online learning. TechTrends, 47(2), 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dabbgah, N., & Fake, H. (2017). College students’ perceptions of personal learning environment through the Lens of digital tools, processes and spaces. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 6(1), 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deng, L., & Yuen, A. (2011). Towards a framework for educational affordances of blogs. Computers & Education, 56, 441–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to Second Language Research (pp. 33–56). Norwood: Albex.Google Scholar
  20. Fiedler, S. (2013). Emancipating and Developing Learning Activity: Systemic Intervention and Re-Instrumentation in Higher Education. Doctoral dissertation. University of Turku. Centre of learning research. Accessed 12 March 2017.
  21. Fiedler, S. & Väljataga, T. (2013). Personal learning environments: a conceptual landscape revisited. eLearning Papers 35. Accessed 12 March 2017.
  22. Fishman, B., Penuel, W., Allen, A.-R., Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2013). Design-based implementation research: An emerging mode for transforming the relationship of research and practice. In J. Fishman, B. Penuel, A.-R. Allen, & B. Cheng (Eds.), Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods and exemplars (pp. 136–156). New York: National Society for Study of Education.Google Scholar
  23. Galanis, N., Mayol, E., Alier, M., & Garcia-Penalvo, F. (2016). Supporting, evaluating and validating informal learning. A social approach. Computers in Human Behaviour, 55(A), 596–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goktas, Y., & Demirel, T. (2012). Blog-enhanced ICT courses: Examining their effects on prospective teachers’ ICT competencies and perceptions. Computers & Education, 58, 908–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodyear, P. (2002). Teaching online. In N. Hativa & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education (pp. 79–101). Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Karpanos, E., Teixeira, P., & Gouveia, R. (2016). Need fulfillment and experiences on social media: A case on Facebook and WhatsApp. Computers in Human Behaviour, 55(B), 888–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kear, K., Chetwynd, F., Williams, J., & Donelan, H. (2012). Web conferencing for synchronous online tutorials: Perspectives of tutors using a new medium. Computers & Education, 58(3), 953–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. LeMahieu, P., Norstrum, L., & Potvin, A. (2017). Design-based implementation research. Quality Assurance in Education, 25(1), 26–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ludvigsen, S., Cress, U., Law, N., Rosé, C., & Stahl, G. (2016). Collaboration scripts and scaffolding. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11, 381–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marsick, V., Watkins, K., Callahan, M. & Volpe, M. (2006). Reviewing theory and research on informal and incidental learning. Retrieved from ERIC on 2017-11-29
  33. Mayes, t., & de Freitas, S. (2013). Review of learning theories, frameworks and models. London: Joint Information Systems Committee.Google Scholar
  34. Muukkonen, H., Hakkarainen, K., & Lakkala, M. (2004). Computer-mediated progressive inquiry in higher education. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.), Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice (pp. 28–53). Hershey: Information Science Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Olofsson, A., Lindberg, J., & Fransson, G. (2017). What do upper secondary school teachers want to know from research on the use of ICT and how does this inform a research design? Education and Information Technologies, 22(6), 2897–2915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Özkan, B. & McKenzie, B. (2008). Social Networking Tools for Teacher Education. In: K. McFerrin, R. Weber, R. Carlsen & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 2772–2776). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  37. Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The knowledge creating metaphor: An emergent epistemological approach to learning. Science and Education, 14(6), 535–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Palincsar, A. (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding fresh — A response to C. Addison Stone's “the metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities”. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 370–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing Research and Development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and Design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Quadir, B., & Chen, N.-S. (2015). The effects of reading and writing habits on learning performance in a blog learning environment. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(4), 635–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rahimi, E., van den Berg, J. & Veen, W. (2012). Designing and Implementing PLEs in a Secondary School Using Web 2.0 Tools. In The Personal Learning Envrionment (PLE) Conference Melbourne 2012.Google Scholar
  43. Rahimi, E., van den Berg, J., & Veen, W. (2015). Facilitating student-driven constructing of learning environments using web 2.0 personal learning environments. Computer & Education, 81, 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Robertson, J. (2011). The educational affordances of blogs for self-directed learning. Computers & Education, 57, 1628–1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ruhalahti, S., Korhonen, A.-M., & Ruokamo, H. (2016). The dialogical authentic Netlearning activity (DIANA) model for collaborative knowledge construction in mOOC. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning, 4(2), 58–67 Accessed 12 March, 2017.Google Scholar
  46. Ruhalahti, S., Korhonen, A.-M., & Rasi, P. (2017). Authentic dialogical knowledge construction: Blended and mobile teacher education program. Educational Research, 59(4), 373–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sahin, S., & Uluyol, C. (2016). Preservice teachers’ perception and use of personal learning environments (PLEs). International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 141–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Salmon, G. (2003). Emoderating the key to teaching & learning online. Oxon: Taylor & Francis Books Ltd..Google Scholar
  49. Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  51. Stone, C. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344–364.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tang, J., Tang, T., & Chiang, C. (2014). Blog learning: Effects of users’ usefulness and efficiency towards continuance intention. Behaviour & Information Technology, 33(1), 36–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Teräs, H. (2016). Design principles of an authentic online professional development program for multicultural faculty. Academic dissertation. University of Tampere, School of Education. Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
  54. 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, 732–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2011). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296.Google Scholar
  56. Vuojärvi, H. (2013) Conceptualising Personal and Mobile Learning Environments in Higher Education. Doctoral dissertation, University of Lappland. Accessed 12 March 2017.
  57. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Wang, Q., & Woo, H. (2010). Investigating students’ critical thinking in weblogs: An exploratory study in a Singapore secondary school. Asia Pasific Education Review, 11, 541–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wheeler, S. (2015). Learning with’e’s Educational theory and practice in the digital age. Llandysul: Gomer Press.Google Scholar
  61. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. The Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry, 11(2), 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yang, J., Quadir, B., Chen, N.-S., & Miao, Q. (2016). Effects of online presence on learning performance in a blog-based online course. Internet and Higher Education, 30, 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education, Department of Teacher EducationUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  2. 2.School of Professional Teacher EducationHäme University of Applied SciencesHämeenlinnaFinland
  3. 3.Faculty of Education, Centre for Media PedagogyUniversity of LaplandRovaniemiFinland

Personalised recommendations