You are here:

VLEs vs. PLEs for Higher Education Institutions

, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in New Orleans, Louisiana, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-02-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


Virtual Learning Environments constitute the cornerstone of the elearning program for most of the Higher Education Institutions worldwide and are now considered to be the main structural unit of every modern University. However, the appearance of the web 2.0 technologies and the changes it has introduced to the users’ everyday behavior, create new demands from the elearning environments the students use. In this direction, the creation of Personal Learning Environments, which can substitute the institutional VLEs, are an internationally recorded and rising trend. Nevertheless, the transition from the absolutely controlled and structured VLEs to the freely managed PLEs, raises questions that demand answers in both administrative and educative levels. The present paper examines the pros and cons of both solutions and suggests ways, in which this transition could be accomplished. Furthermore, it proposes a PLE that integrates the Institutional VLE, ensuring the productive coexistence of both systems.


Panagiotidis, P. (2013). VLEs vs. PLEs for Higher Education Institutions. In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2013--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 896-901). New Orleans, Louisiana, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 25, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Agee, A.A., & Yang, C. (2009). Top-Ten IT Issues, 2009. EDUCAUSE Review, 44(4), 44 – 59.
  2. Annetta L., Folta, E., Klesath, M. (2010). Use of Virtual Learning Environment in Distance Education. In A. Leonard, E. Folta,
  3. Browne, T., Hewitt, R., Jenkins, M., Voce, J., Walker, R., & Yip, H. (2010). 2010 Survey of Technology Enhanced Learning for Higher Education in the UK, UCISA. 1-100.
  4. Chatti, M.A, Agustiawan, M.R, Jarke, M., & Soecht, M. (2010). Toward a Personal Learning Environment Framework. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 1 (4), 66-85.
  5. Clark, K., Beer, C. & Jones, D. (2010). Academic Involvement with the LMS: An Exploratory Study. In C.H. Steel, M.J.
  6. Drachsler, H., Pecceu, D., Arts, T., Hutten, E., Rutledge, L., Van Rosmalen, P., Hummel, H., and Koper, R. (2009). ReMashed-Recommendation Approaches for Mash-Up Personal Learning Environments inFormal and Informal Learning Settings. In U. Cress, V. Dimitrova, and M. Specht (Eds.), EC-TEL 2009, LNCS 5794, Berlin Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag. 788 – 793
  7. Godwin-Jones, R. (2009). Emerging Technologies Personal Learning Environments. Language Learning& Technology, 13 (2),-900 DASHDASH
  8. Ingerman Bret L.I. & Yang, C. (2010). Top-Ten Issues 2010. EDUCAUSE Review, 45(3), 46-60.
  9. Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). The NMC Horizon Report: 2012 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
  10. Kolah, D. & Fosmire, M. (2010). Information Portals: A New Tool for Teaching Information Literacy Skills. In Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 60, 1-35. DOI: 10.5062/F4KH0K85.
  11. Martindale, T. & Dowdy, M. (2010). Personal learning environments. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.) Emerging Technologies in Distance Education, Athabasca Press. 177-193
  12. McLoughlin, C. & Lee J.W.M. (2007). Social Software and Participatory Learning: Pedagogical Choices with Technology Affordances in the Web 2.0 era, Proceedings Ascilite Singapore, 2007, 664-675.
  13. Mott, B.J. (2010). Envisioning the Post-LMS Era: The Open Learning Network, EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 33, 1 – 8.
  14. Oliveira, L. & Moreira, F. (2008). Teaching and Learning with Social Software in Higher Education– Content Management Systems Integrated with Web-based Applications as a Key-factor for Success. Proceedings of International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation ICERI, 2008, ICERI, Madrid, Spain, 1171-1177.
  15. Peter, Y., Leroy, S., and Leprêtre, E. (2010). First steps in the integration of institutional and personal learning environments. Proceedings Workshop Future Learning Landscape, EC-TEL 2010, Barcelona, Spain. 1-5.
  16. Sclater, N. (2008). Web 2.0, Personal Learning Environments, and the Future of Learning Management Systems. EDUCAUSE Center fo Applied Research Bulletin, 13, 1-13.
  17. Severance C., Hardin, J., WhyteA. (2008): The coming functionality mash-up in Personal Learning Environments, Interactive Learning Environments, 16 (1), 47-62.
  18. Siemens, G., & Tittenberger, P. (2009). Handbook of Emerging Technologies for Learning. Univ. Of Manitoba.(cid:1)
  19. Spadavecchia, E. (2008). E-learning 2.0 for Supplementary Teaching. Je-LKS Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 4 (3), 177-182.
  20. Thalheimer, W. (2008). Evaluation e-Learning 2.0: Getting Our Heads Around the Complexity. Learning Solutions, Practical Applications of Technology for Learning e-Magazine, 18, 1-14.
  21. Ullrich, C., Borau, K., Luo, H., Tan, X., Shen, L., & Shen, R. (2008). Why Web 2.0 is Good for Learning and for Research: Principles and Prototypes. WorldWide Web Conference Proceedings, 2008, International WorldWide Web Committee (IW3C2), Beijing, China. 705-714.
  22. Van Harmelen, M. (2006). Personal Learning Environments. In Kinshuk, R. Koper, P. Kommers, P. Kirschner, D. Sampson&

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact