ascilite2015

Conclusion
In contrast with other studies on PLEs, this study focused on technologies used by undergraduate
students for assessment-related tasks. Two cohorts from different institutions were surveyed and
participated in focus groups during which they also drew representations of their PLEs. When
accessing academic resources, these students used a variety of websites, especially Google Scholar,
journal databases and e-books, but the LMS used at each institution did not dominate their thinking.
The most commonly used physical devices were portable, including laptops, tablets and
smartphones, which students tended to view as central to their PLEs. Students placed high
importance on being connected to the internet, especially via Wi-Fi technology, and having phone
coverage. However, their use of social media in association with assessment use, although valued as
a sharing mechanism, was not as widespread as has been reported in other studies about the use of
technology in general by higher education students. Definite preferences were shown for software
and tools which were easy to use, convenient to access and quick to learn, especially when
recommended by their peers. Although the students' use of technology was considered narrower than
expected, they did not feel restricted by their institution's formal technological networks, suggesting
their PLEs were broader that the collection of technologies offered by an LMS.
More research is required to investigate the contexts in which these main technologies are used by
students in association with assessment and the connections between these technologies. Methods
used by university students to collate technologies within a single, unifying technology cluster may
also be investigated and discovered. From this study, there is some indication that social technologies
may be used less during assessment tasks than for general learning purposes. Investigation into how
technologies are used by postgraduate students for assessment tasks is also warranted. These areas
of research are planned for the following stages of the study.
References
Attwell, G. (2007a). E-portfolio: The DNA of the Personal Learning Environment? Journal of e-
Learning and Knowledge Society, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.pontydysgu.org/wpcontent/uploads/2008/02/eportolioDNAofPLEjournal.pdf
Attwell, G. (2007b). The personal learning environments: The future of eLearning? eLearning Papers,
2(1), 1-8.
Castaneda, L., & Soto, J. (2010). Building personal learning environments by using and mixing ICT
tools in a professional way. Digital Education Review, 18, 9-25.
Clark, W., Logan, K., Luckin, R., Mee, A., & Oliver, M. (2009). Beyond Web 2.0: Mapping the
technology landscapes of young learners. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), 56-69.
Cochrane, T., & Withell, A. (2013). Do 21st Century students dream of electric sheep? A mobile social
media framework for creative pedagogies. In H. Carter, M. Gosper & J. Hedberg (Eds.), Electric
Dreams. Proceedings ascilite 2013 Sydney (pp. 151-161). Macquarie University: Australasian
Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE).
Conde, M. A., García, F., Rodríguez-Conde, M. J., Alier, M., & García-Holgado, A. (2014). Perceived
openness of Learning Management Systems by students and teachers in education and
technology courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 31(517-526).
Conradie, P. W. (2014). Supporting self-directed learning by connectivism and Personal Learning
Environments. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 4(3), 254-259.
Cross, J. (2006). The low-hanging fruit Is tasty. Internet Time Blog. Retrieved
from http://www.internettime.com/2006/04/informal-learning-clo-april-06/
Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and selfregulated
learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and
Higher Education, 15(1), 3-8.
Drexler, W. (2010). The networked student model for construction of personal learning environments:
Balancing teacher control and student autonomy. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
36(3), 369-385.
Fiedler, S., & Väljataga, T. (2010). Interventions for second-order change in higher education:
Challenges and barriers. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 8(2), 85 - 92.
Goldstein, I. P., & Miller, M. L. (1976). AI Based Personal Learning Environments: Directions for long
term research. Retrieved 06 May, 2015, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED207580.pdf
213
FP:201